Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The tropical mixed garden in Costa Rica : a potential focus for agroforestry research? Price, Norman William 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A1 P75.pdf [ 27.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0076965.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0076965-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0076965-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0076965-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0076965-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0076965-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0076965-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0076965-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0076965.ris

Full Text

THE TROPICAL MIXED GARDEN IN COSTA RICA: A POTENTIAL FOCUS FOR AGROFORESTRY RESEARCH? By NORMAN WILLIAM PRICE B.Sc, The Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971 M.E.S., York University, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Studies [Resource Management Science]) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standards THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1989 @ Norman William P r i c e , 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Graduate Studies The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date JJ^A^C D~<i'//O  r T / DE-6 (2/88) Supervisor: Dr. J.P. Kimmins i i A B S T R A C T Overpopulation and over-exploitation of resources continues to s t r a i n the process of development for many countries i n the t r o p i c s . In L a t i n America deforestation and the subsequent marginalization of these lands has put pressure on the a g r i c u l t u r a l research community t o develop appropriate land-use systems for these areas. Agroforestry i s one c l a s s of such systems that are presently r e c e i v i n g much attent i o n . The t r o p i c a l mixed garden, i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s one such system that has a t t r a c t e d a t t e n t i o n from researchers i n various countries. The present study has focused upon the t r a d i t i o n a l mixed garden system, as found i n Costa Rica, with the objective of determining i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r increased contribution to small farming systems. Development of the data base for t h i s assessment included a survey of 225 farms d i s t r i b u t e d throughout Costa Rica, year-long case studies of s i x farms, d i v i d e d between two contrasting e c o l o g i c a l zones, and a simple simulation model of a mixed garden agroforestry system. The mixed garden i s c l e a r l y an important component of small farming systems i n Costa Rica. Though hal f of the gardens studied were only between 0.01 to 0.20 hectares i n s i z e , h a l f were greater, and a few encompassed a hectare or more of land. As a percent of t o t a l farm s i z e , mixed gardens were most important i n the T r o p i c a l Dry Forest and T r o p i c a l Moist Forest l i f e zones. Mixed gardens are more common i n economically depressed areas and l e s s so i n areas where farmers are well o f f . The ranking of various f a c t o r s representing e c o l o g i c a l complexity of mixed gardens i s what one would expect i f d i f f e r e n c e i n garden complexity were determined s o l e l y by between-zone d i f f e r e n c e s i n the environment, thus supporting hypothesis 1. On the other hand, m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of species presence/absence data f o r mixed gardens suggest that the hypothesis (Hypothesis 2) that Holdridge's system of e c o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s an adequate means of s t r a t i f y i n g the v a r i a t i o n i n species composition i n mixed gardens i s f a l s e . The findings also support the hypothesis (Hypothesis 3) that the mixed garden has a higher energy benefit-cost r a t i o than commercial cropping systems. The commercial cropping systems on the farms studied consumed between 9 to 10,000 times the amount of c u l t u r a l energy as d i d the mixed gardens. Mixed gardens on small farms have the p o t e n t i a l to contribute much more to the cash economy of the farm household than they generally do at present. The observations reported here concerning labour patterns and management pr a c t i c e s , together with the economic a n a l y s i s , support the hypothesis (Hypothesis 4) that the output of the mixed garden can be improved. The economic and labour use analysis presented here also supports the hypothesis (Hypothesis 5) that "the mixed garden e x i s t s as a supplementary enterprise whose primary function i s to absorb excess farm labour." With due regard f o r the l i m i t a t i o n s of a simulation of the type used i n t h i s t h e s i s , I f i n d support for the contention that the t r a d i t i o n a l mixed garden i n Costa Rica can be developed i n t o an e c o l o g i c a l l y conservative yet commercially v i a b l e cropping system. In p a r t i c u l a r , the incorporation of high-value timber species shows the p o t e n t i a l to s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve the long-term economy of the farm. Integrating animal production, as Wagner (1957) had advocated e a r l i e r , also can enhance garden p r o d u c t i v i t y . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES x i LIST OF APPENDICES xiv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xv CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 Background 1 1.1 Questions and Hypotheses 7 1.2 Organization of the Thesis 10 CHAPTER 2. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TROPICAL MIXED GARDEN 12 2.0 Pedigree and Lineage 12 2.1 Historical Development of Interest in the Tropical Mixed Garden 14 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODS AND STUDY LOCATIONS 17 3.0 Research Design 17 3.0.1 Farming Systems in Tropical Agriculture and Agroforestry 17 3.1 The Small Farm Survey 19 3.2 Description of Survey Locations 20 3.3 Survey Methods 24 3.3.1 Data Collection 24 3.3.2 Analytical Techniques •••• 2 4 3.4 Description of the Case Study Areas 26 3.4.1 Ecological Profiles 26 3.4.1.1 Pitahaya 28 3.4.1.2 San Juan Sur . 30 3.4.2 Village Profiles 30 3.4.2.1 Pitahaya 30 3.4.2.2 San Juan Sur • 35 iv 3.5 Case Study Methods 36 3.5.1 Selection of Case Studies 36 3.5.2 Farming Systems Analysis 37 3.5.2.1 Economic Performance 37 3.5.2.2 Ecological Description 37 3.5.2.3 Energy Analysis 40 CHAPTER 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL FARMING SYSTEMS IN COSTA RICA 41 4.0 Introduction ••• 41 4.1 The Farming System Environment . 41 4.1.1 Family Structure 42 4.1.2 Tenancy 44 4.1.3 Land Use 48 4.1.4 Farm Labour •••• 5 5 4.1.5 Off-Farm Employment 58 4.1.6 Off-Farm Agricultural Inputs 59 4.2 Summary and Conclusions 61 CHAPTER 5. THE MIXED GARDEN AGROECOSYSTEM 63 5.0 Mixed Garden Functions 63 5.1 Mixed Garden Frequency and Diversity 65 5.2 Stratification of Plant Forms 70 5.3 Relative Ecological Complexity 74 5.4 Animals in the Mixed Garden 76 5.5 Mixed Garden Labour Inputs 78 5.6 Summary and Conclusions 80 CHAPTER 6. HOLDRIDGE LIFE ZONE ECOLOGY AND MIXED GARDEN VEGETATION ANALYSIS 82 6.0 Introduction 82 6.1 Multivariate Analysis of Species Presence Data 82 2 S mmary and Co c u ons 94CHAPTER 7. FARMING SYSTEMS IN TWO CONTRASTING LIFE ZONES IN COSTA RICA 96 7.0 Introduction 96 7.1 Case Study Descriptions 98 7.1.1 Pitahaya 98 7.1.2 San Juan Sur 116 7.2 Summary and Conclusions 130 CHAPTER 8. THE MIXED GARDEN REVISITED: MIXED GARDEN ECOLOGICAL PROFILES IN TWO CONTRASTING LIFE ZONES 132 8.0 Introduction 132 8.1 Mixed Garden Design . 133 8.2 Species Richness and Distribution 146 8.3 Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) 157 8.4 Climate Modification 157 8.5 Weed Growth 158 8.6 Li t t e r Production 160 8.7 Soils 162 8.8 Roots 164 8.9 Management Practices 167 8.10 Cultural Energy Use 169 8.11 Discussion 174 8.12 Conclusion 177 CHAPTER 9. FARMING AND AGROECOSYSTEM ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 179 9.0 Introduction 179 9.1 Comparative Farm Income and Expenses 180 9.2 Cashflow Budgets 182 9.3 Relative Economic Performance of Different Agroecosystems 185 9.4 The Economic Performance of the Mixed Garden 188 5 Summary and Conclusions 9v i CHAPTER 10. SIMULATION OF A MIXED GARDEN AGROFORESTRY SYSTEM .. 192 10.0 Introduction 192 10.1 Model Structure and Assumptions 193 10.1.1 Description of the Farming System 193 10.1.2 Description of the Simulated Mixed Garden .. 195 10.2 Results 202 10.2.1 Mixed Garden Fruit Production 202 10.2.2 Mixed Garden Timber Production 207 10.2.3 Farm Income and Expenses 209 10.2.4 The Mixed Garden Energy Store 213 10.3 Discussion 213 10.4 Conclusions 218 CHAPTER 11. GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 219 BIBLIOGRAPHY 225 APPENDICES . 233 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1. General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o i l s i n the area of Pitahaya de Puntarenas (OPSA 1979) 28 Table 3-2. General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o i l s i n the area of San Juan Sur de T u r r i a l b a (OPSA 1979) 34 Table 3-3. Age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the residents of Pitahaya de Puntarenas 35 Table 3-4. Age d i s t r i b u t i o n of the residents of San Juan Sur de T u r r i a l b a 36 Table 4-1. Family structure on small farms i n Costa Rica, s t r a t i f i e d according to the Holdridge l i f e zone system of e c o l o g i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 43 Table 4-2. Comparison of population structure between national census data and study data 44 Table 4-3. Subjective r a t i n g of the r e l a t i v e economic well-being of the d i f f e r e n t survey l o c a t i o n s . Each l o c a t i o n i s rated r e l a t i v e to the other areas within the l i f e zone and also to a l l other locations 44 Table 4-4. Tenancy, farm s i z e , land a c q u i s i t i o n and land d i s p o s i t i o n arrangements for f i v e Costa Rican l i f e zones 46 Table 4-5. Land use. Mean hectareage (with standard deviations) dedicated to d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on small farms i n f i v e d i f f e r e n t l i f e zones i n Costa Rica 49 Table 4-6. Land use. Mean percent of farmland (with standard deviations) dedicated to d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on small farms i n f i v e l i f e zones i n Costa Rica 50 Table 4-7. Characterization of farms surveyed according to the number of agroecosystems managed. Data are s t r a t i f i e d by l i f e zone and survey l o c a t i o n 51 Table 4-8. Family and hired labour contributions to farm a c t i v i t i e s on an annual basis according to l i f e zone 56 Table 4-9. Off-farm employment by small farmers and family members according to l i f e zone 57 Table 4-10. Summary of current and past usage of off-farm a g r i c u l t u r a l inputs by small farmers i n f i v e d i f f e r e n t l i f e zones i n Costa Rica 60 Table 5-1. A comparison of the percentage of farmers from each of the TDF and TPWF,T l i f e zones ranking i n order of importance f i v e observed a c t i v i t i e s within the mixed garden 63 v i i i Table 5-2. A comparison between the TDF and TPWF,T f i v e zones of the r e l a t i v e importance of f i v e d i f f e r e n t mixed garden functions 64 Table 5-3. Frequency and d i v e r s i t y of mixed gardens and dispersed gardens on small farms i n f i v e Costa Rican l i f e zones 66 Table 5-4. Mixed garden s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n f i v e d i f f e r e n t Costa Rican l i f e zones 72 Table 5-5. A comparison of four t r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r mixed gardens from three Costa Rican l i f e zones 75 Table 5-6. R e l a t i v e e c o l o g i c a l complexity of the mixed garden i n the f i v e d i f f e r e n t l i f e zones, summarized by ranking for a v a r i e t y of e c o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 75 Table 5-7., Animals managed within the mixed garden on small farms i n f i v e Costa Rican l i f e zones 77 Table 5-8. Between-life zone comparison of the frequency of occurrence of the three most common animals i n mixed gardens 79 Table 5-9. Days of labour contributed by family members and others to mixed garden management 79 Table 6-1. Eigenvalues and accounted-for variance, based upon the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix input derived from P r i n c i p a l Components Analysis (PCA) of mixed garden species data 85 Table 6-2. Comparisons of Sums of Squares Ratios from the ANOVA's for three d i f f e r e n t systems of vegetation c l a s s i f i c a t i o n applied to mixed garden species data from Costa Rican small farms 87 Table 6-3. Proportion of v a r i a t i o n i n mixed garden species presence data explained by three d i f f e r e n t systems of land c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , expressed as the one complement of Wilk's Lambda, from MANOVA 88 Table 6-4. Structure c o r r e l a t i o n (r 2) between sets of geo-environmental and socio-demographic v a r i a b l e s and the f i r s t canonical v a r i a t e (El) from analysis of mixed garden species composition 91 Table 7-1. Descriptions of households of the s i x farming systems case studies, with d e t a i l s on family structure and assets 99 Table 7-2. Cropping sequence and pattern i n the "rice-pipian-maiz-watermelon" agroecosystem of Farm 226 100 i x Table 8-1. Mixed garden species found i n the gardens of case study farms i n Pitahaya de Puntarenas and San Juan Sur de T u r r i a l b a 147 Table 8-2. Summary of the t o t a l number and d i s t r i b u t i o n of mixed garden species, both within and between e c o l o g i c a l l i f e zones 149 Table 8-3. Species richness and l e a f parameters f o r s i x mixed gardens d i s t r i b u t e d between two l i f e zones .... 149 Table 8-4. Photosynthetically a c t i v e r a d i a t i o n (PAR) represented as percent transmission and o p t i c a l density, f or s i x mixed gardens d i s t r i b u t e d i n two contrasting l i f e zones 157 Table 8-5. Comparative e f f e c t of mixed garden on three environmental measures 158 Table 8-6. Summary of s o i l analysis f o r three mixed gardens, each i n two contrasting l i f e zones of Costa Rica 163 Table 8-7. Root area index (RAI) for the s i x case study mixed gardens 165 Table 8-8. Management pr a c t i c e s observed i n the mixed gardens of the s i x farming system case studies 168 Table 8-9. Summary of the energy benefit-cost r a t i o s fo r the d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems found on the case study farms 171 Table 8-10. Ratios of c u l t u r a l energy inputs between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems and the s i x case study mixed gardens 172 Table 9-1. Comparative farm income and expenses f o r farming systems i n the Pitahaya de Puntarenas and San Juan Sur de T u r r i a l b a areas 181 Table 9-2. Comparative cash flow budgets (ending cash balance), with the percentage of t o t a l monthly income derived from the mixed garden (values i n brackets) 183 Table 9-3. Comparison of the r e l a t i v e economic performance of agroecosystems, as indexed by benefit-cost r a t i o s , on s i x farms divided between two contrasting l i f e zones 186 Table 10-1. Description of the simulated farming system 193 Table 10-2. L i s t of English names and L a t i n binomials for mixed garden species 195 Table 10-3. Seasonal harvest schedule for f r u i t and nut trees i n the mixed garden 197 Table 10-4. Management notes on the d i f f e r e n t mixed garden species and Madero Negro 198 X Table 10-5. Assumed costs of seedlings and p i g breeding stock ... 202 Table 10-6. Annual f r u i t production and value f o r the model mixed garden agroforestry system 203 Table 10-7. Five year increments (simulated) f o r biomass, energy store, height growth, stem wood volume and value (1983 p r i c e ; US$0.43/boardfoot) f o r Ramon, Cedro and Pochote. Values associated with Madero Negro are Colones 208 Table 10-8. Simulated farm income and expenses f o r a farming system with an mixed garden agroforestry component at d i f f e r e n t stages of development. Values are i n Costa Rican colones and are based upon 1983 p r i c e s 210 Table 10-9. Simulated f i v e year increments f o r stem wood biomass (kg), energy store (Kcal), height growth (m) and stem wood volume (m3) f o r the p r i n c i p a l t r e e species i n the mixed garden '214 Table 10-10. Summary comparison of r a t i o s of net farm income at d i f f e r e n t stages of mixed garden development f o r the simulated farm and f o r each of the case study farms from Pitahaya 218 x i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1. Maps of the f i v e Holdridge l i f e zones included i n the study and the l o c a t i o n of sampling centres within each l i f e zone 21 Figure 3-2. Map showing r e l a t i v e locations of the communities of Pitahaya and San Juan Sur 27 Figure 3-3. Monthly p r e c i p i t a t i o n and evaporation f o r 1983, with long-term averages f o r p r e c i p i t a t i o n superimposed, as recorded at the Puntarenas meteorological s t a t i o n 29 Figure 3-4. Long-term averages f o r r e l a t i v e humidity (%) and temperature (°C), recorded at the Puntarenas meteorological s t a t i o n 29 Figure 3-5. A e r i a l view of the community of Pitahaya and surrounding landscape, inc l u d i n g the mangrove swamp 31 Figure 3-6. Monthly p r e c i p i t a t i o n and evaporation f o r 1983, with long-term averages f o r p r e c i p i t a t i o n superimposed, as recorded at the CATIE meteorological s t a t i o n 32 Figure 3-7. Long-term averages f o r r e l a t i v e humidity (%) and temperature (°C), as recorded at the CATIE meteorological s t a t i o n 32 Figure 3-8. A e r i a l view of the community of San Juan Sur and the surrounding landscape 33 • Figure 4-1. Mixed garden s i z e (ha) as a function of frequency of occurrence, s t r a t i f i e d according to l i f e zone 54 v /Figure 5-1. Garden d i v e r s i t y as a function of frequency of ' occurrence, s t r a t i f i e d according to l i f e zone 67 Figure 6-1. Ninety-five percent confidence e l l i p s e s f o r a p l o t of farms according to a PCOA of mixed garden species presence/absence data 84 Figure 6-2. Ninety-five percent confidence e l l i p s e s of farms by ampling l o c a t i o n f o r each of the f i v e Holdridge l i f e zones 89 Figure 7-1. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows f o r Farm 226, Pitahaya 101 Figure 7-2. Weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 226, Pitahaya 103 Figure 7-3. Relative weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 226, Pitahaya 104 x i i Figure 7-4. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows f or Farm 221, Pitahaya 106 Figure 7-5. Weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 221, Pitahaya 108 Figure 7-6. Relative weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 221, Pitahaya 109 Figure 7-7. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows f or Farm 303, Pitahaya 112 Figure 7-8. Weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 303, Pitahaya 114 Figure 7-9. Rel a t i v e weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 303, Pitahaya 115 Figure 7-10. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows f or Farm 300, San Juan Sur 117 Figure 7-11. Weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 300, San Juan Sur 120 Figure 7-12. Rel a t i v e weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 300, San Juan Sur .. 121 Figure 7-13. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows f o r Farm 301, San Juan Sur 123 Figure 7-14. Weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 301, San Juan Sur 124 Figure 7-15. Rel a t i v e weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t groecosystems on Farm 301, San Juan Sur ... 125 Figure 7-16. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows f or Farm 302, San Juan Sur 127 Figure 7-17. Weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 302, San Juan Sur 128 Figure 7-18. Rel a t i v e weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 302, San Juan Sur .. 129 Figure 8-1. Plan of Farm 221's mixed garden (Pitahaya), showing organization and r e l a t i v e locations of species 134 Figure 8-2. V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e of Farm 221's mixed garden, showing stem and canopy dimensions 135 Figure 8-3. Plan of Farm 226's mixed garden (Pitahaya), showing organization and r e l a t i v e locations of species 136 Figure 8-4. V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e of Farm 226's mixed garden, showing stem and canopy dimensions 137 Figure 8-5. Plan of Farm 303's mixed garden (Pitahaya), showing organization and r e l a t i v e locations of species 138 x i i i Figure 8-6. V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e of Farm 303's mixed garden, showing stem and canopy dimensions 139 Figure 8-7. Plan of Farm 300's mixed garden (San Juan Sur), showing organization and r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s of species 140 Figure 8-8. V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e of Farm 300's mixed garden, showing stem and canopy dimensions 141 Figure 8-9. Plan of Farm 301's mixed garden (San Juan Sur), showing organization and r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s of species 142 Figure 8-10. V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e of Farm 301's mixed garden, showing stem and canopy dimensions 143 Figure 8-11. Plan of Farm 302's mixed garden (San Juan Sur), showing organization and r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s of species 144 Figure 8-12. V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e of Farm 302's mixed garden, showing stem and canopy dimensions 145 Figure 8-13. V e r t i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of lea f area i n s i x mixed gardens Diagrams are based on the mean of 100 measurements per s i t e 151 Figure 8-14. Annual p r o d u c t i v i t y of weed populations i n gardens i n Pitahaya (TDF l i f e zone). Sample areas 226A open to poultry, while sample areas 226B were fenced o f f from poultry 159 Figure 8-15. Annual p r o d u c t i v i t y of weed populations, gardens i n San Juan Sur (TPWF,T) 159 Figure 8-16. Average monthly l i t t e r f a l l f o r the mixed gardens during the 12 months of the case studies. Pitahaya i s i n the TDF l i f e zone, while San Juan Sur i s i n the TPWF,T l i f e zone. Each curve i s based on three gardens 161 Figure 8-17. Root mass (gm/m2) for each mixed garden d i s t r i b u t e d according to root diameters. Samples 1 - 3 are from Pitahaya, while 4 - 6 are from San Juan Sur 166 Figure 8-18. Root mass (gm/m2) for each mixed garden d i s t r i b u t e d according to sampling depth. Samples 1 - 3 are from Pitahaya, while 4 - 6 are from San Juan Sur 166' Figure 9-1. Monthly d i s t r i b u t i o n of net annual income fo r the farming systems of Pitahaya 184 Figure 9-2. Monthly d i s t r i b u t i o n of net annual income fo r the farming systems for San Juan Sur 184 Figure 10-1. Plan of the mixed garden agroforestry system and the associated madero negro l i v i n g fence agroecosystem 196 x i v LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Survey questionnaire form 234 Appendix 2. Figures A l - A36 244 Appendix 3. Table A l 281 Appendix 4. Tables A2 - A5 285 Appendix 5. Table A6 291 Appendix 6. Table A7 294 Appendix 7. Tables A8 and A9 296 Appendix 8. Table A10 301 Appendix 9. Selected plans of Costa Rican mixed gardens 303 Appendix 10. L i s t of English names and L a t i n binomials f o r mixed garden species on the s i x farming system case studies 321 Appendix 11. Temperature and humidity measurements from Pitahaya de Puntarenas, Costa Rica 324 Appendix 12. Results of a study of weed p r o d u c t i v i t y i n t r o p i c a l mixed gardens 326 Appendix 13. Mean monthly l i t t e r f a l l f o r s i x mixed gardens d i s t r i b u t e d between two contrasting l i f e zones 342 Appendix 14. Summary of s o i l analyses f o r d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on the s i x case study farms 344 Appendix 15. Root biomass f o r s i x mixed gardens d i s t r i b u t e d between two contrasting l i f e zones 346 Appendix 16. Summary of the c u l t u r a l energy balance f o r the d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on the d i f f e r e n t farms 348 Appendix 17. C a l o r i f i c values f o r the d i f f e r e n t materials used or produced on the case study farms 367 Appendix 18. L i s t of standardized weights f o r the d i f f e r e n t products from the agroecosystems on the case study farms 369 Appendix 19. Farm income and expenses f o r the s i x case studies, 1983-1984 371 Appendix 20. Pr i c e l i s t f o r goods produced on the farm. Values derived from sales or observations i n l o c a l markets 278 Appendix 21. Cash-flow budgets f o r the s i x case studies, 1983-1984 380 Appendix 22. Relat i v e economic performance of cropping systems on each of the case studies 396 X V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In the strategy around the game of chess, there i s what i s c a l l e d the "beginning game", the "middle game" and the "end game". The process leading up to t h i s t h e s i s has followed a s i m i l a r pattern. In the beginning, I enjoyed, and g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge, the patronage of Dr. Gerardo Budowski, then Head of the Department of Renewable Natural Resources at the Centro Agronomico T r o p i c a l de Investigacion Y Ensenanza (CATIE). This patronage was, I believe, instrumental i n my r e c e i v i n g a Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) research grant that gave me the f i n a n c i a l freedom to carry out the study. My "middle game" would not have been possible without the cooperation of farmers throughout Costa Rica. For many, i t was an act of f a i t h to b e l i e v e I was not from the Tax Department, given the questions I was asking, and I thank them f o r i t . In p a r t i c u l a r , I am g r a t e f u l to the f a m i l i e s of Miguel B a d i l l a , Jorge Obando, Pedro Perez, Alvaro Navarro, B o l i v a r Torres, and Francisco Bermudez. Each of these gentlemen and t h e i r f a m i l i e s welcomed me into t h e i r homes each week for a year or more and trusted me with knowledge of t h e i r f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s . We met as strangers but parted as l i f e - l o n g f r i e n d s . I would al s o acknowledge, at t h i s point, the more than able assistance, as i n t e r p r e t e r and guide, of Ing. H e l i a Mora. Her knowledge and f a m i l i a r i t y with the people and plants of Costa Rica was invaluable. My t h e s i s committee of Drs. L. Lavkulich (Chairman), J.P. Kimmins (Supervisor), R. Barachello and B. H o l l have abl e l y guided my "end game". I would, e s p e c i a l l y , l i k e to express my gratitude to Dr. Kimmins f o r h i s always generous and en t h u s i a s t i c support. Transcending "beginnings" and "endings" has been the support given to me by my family. To say that I am g r a t e f u l to my wife, Kim, and my sons, Alex and Gordon, does l i t t l e by way of acknowledging my debt to them but, i s the best that words alone allow. To a l l those, acknowledged here or i n my heart, who have help along the way, thank you. CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.0 Background The i n d u s t r i a l growth experienced by the developed nations has f a i l e d to m a t e r i a l i z e f o r those nations of the s o - c a l l e d " t h i r d world". Thus, there remains a large portion of the human population dependent upon subsistence a g r i c u l t u r e f o r t h e i r s u r v i v a l . United Nations estimates of world population growth p r e d i c t that there w i l l be s i x b i l l i o n people on earth by the year 2000 (Myers 1984). Already, t h i s demographic t r a j e c t o r y has created pressures that are threatening the world's f o r e s t s and overtaxing the land base (Myers 1984; Eckholm 1976). Eckholm (1976) provides a panorama of the world-wide trends of def o r e s t a t i o n and land degradation. The concurrent expansion of poverty, m a l n u t r i t i o n and human s u f f e r i n g i s documented by Myers (1984). Of the three regions - Asia, A f r i c a and L a t i n America - where these trends are most strongly developed, i t i s L a t i n America that s t i l l r e t a i n s s i g n i f i c a n t f o r e s t reserves (BID 1983). However, the process of def o r e s t a t i o n i n t h i s area has reached c r i t i c a l l e v e l s , as in d i c a t e d by an average annual rate of forest loss of 4.1 m i l l i o n hectares (BID 1983). As the above c i t e d authors and others (Hartshorn et a l . 1982; Ruthenburg 1971) have noted, rapid and l a r g e l y uncontrolled expansion of a g r i c u l t u r e has been the p r i n c i p a l agent, driven by increasing population pressure. With respect to population growth, pressure on land resources, and a v a r i e t y of s o c i a l issues, Central America represents a microcosm of the L a t i n American s i t u a t i o n . With annual population growth rates ranging from 2.2 to 3.4 percent (Gallardo and Lopez 1986), and population d e n s i t i e s of between 7.7 and 265 persons per square kilometer, t h i s region i s experiencing a wide range of s o c i a l and environmental problems. E l Salvador, f o r example, no longer has any natural f o r e s t , outside 2 of a few remnants "protected" as national parks. Given a t o t a l land area of only 20,935 km2 and a population of 5.5 m i l l i o n (Gallardo and Lopez 1986), E l Salvador i s the most densely populated country i n L a t i n America. The h i s t o r i c a l development of E l Salvador's s i t u a t i o n has been documented by Daugherty (1973), while Pric e (1977) has discussed the serious resource problems r e l a t e d to deforestation i n t h i s country. Costa Rica i s representative of a country at the other end of the spectrum from E l Salvador. With h a l f the population and more than twice the land base, Costa Rica s t i l l has extensive areas of natural f o r e s t . Unfortunately, with an external debt of US$3.6 b i l l i o n (La Nacion 1987), a f e t t e r e d i n d u s t r i a l and commercial sector (Woodbridge 1987), and a r a p i d l y growing population (2.5% i n 1989; Population Reference Bureau 1989) there i s a ra p i d loss of the forest resource base. A country once almost completely forested, Costa Rica retained only about 31% of i t s o r i g i n a l f o r e s t by 1977 (Hartshorn et a l . 1982). Since then the demand fo r a g r i c u l t u r a l land has led to the deforestation of about 60,000 ha/yr. Much of the land converted from forest i s unsuitable f o r permanent a g r i c u l t u r e because of poor s o i l s or steep slopes, and i s e i t h e r abandoned or switched to extensive pasture a f t e r one or two years (Hartshorn et a l . 1982). On average, more than 50% of the population i n Central America l i v e s i n the r u r a l areas. For E l Salvador the figu r e f o r 1985 was 47%, while fo r Costa Rica i t was 52% (Gallardo and Lopez 1986). In a discu s s i o n of the need to develop appropriate a g r i c u l t u r a l technology f o r L a t i n America, Peneiro et a l . (1981) emphasize the c r i t i c a l importance of t h i s l a r g e l y small-farming population. A l l countries of the Central American region are "dual economies": subsistence c u l t u r e e x i s t s along side an export-oriented or cash economy. The r e l a t i v e strength of each of these two economies va r i e s from one country t o another. In the case of E l Salvador, the simple immensity of i t s demographic problem and a degraded environment make subsistence 3 c u l t u r e the norm f o r the majority, i n s p i t e of a strong i n d u s t r i a l and manufacturing sector. Costa Rica, by v i r t u e of i t s smaller population and more extensive natural resources, i s predominantly a cash economy. Both subsistence c u l t u r e and the cash economy are playing d e s t r u c t i v e r o l e s with respect to the natural resource base of the region. Subsistence c u l t u r e i s structured around the p r a c t i c e of s h i f t i n g a g r i c u l t u r e . Once a v i a b l e form of land use (Marten 1986; Pinton 1985; Ruthenburg 1971), t h i s p r a c t i c e has changed because of land s c a r c i t y or through adoption by u n s k i l l e d , land-hungry peasants. Fallow periods are shortened leading to severely depleted s o i l f e r t i l i t y over an ever-expanding area. The end r e s u l t , as i s evidenced i n E l Salvador, i s a deforested countryside of eroded and unproductive s o i l s inhabited by desperate men and women t r y i n g to eke out t h e i r s u r v i v a l . The evidence i s c l e a r that an urgent need e x i s t s f o r productive a g r i c u l t u r a l systems that both protect and enhance the resource base. The cash-oriented export economy often inadvertently o f f e r s incentives that lead to a s i m i l a r destruction of the natural resource base. One economic sector which i s involved i n t h i s process i s the c a t t l e industry (Nations and Nye 1980). Often u t i l i z i n g land-poor peasants to cut the f o r e s t and grow food crops f o r a year or so u n t i l s o i l f e r t i l i t y i s too depleted to sustain production, the c a t t l e i n t e r e s t s then take over and e s t a b l i s h pasture. There i s l i t t l e or no incentive to improve the q u a l i t y of t h i s pasture or to prevent i t s d e t e r i o r a t i o n . The premise i s , true t o the f r o n t i e r mentality, that there i s more land yet to be expl o i t e d . Adding impetus to t h i s p r a c t i c e i s the fac t that over the short-term large p r o f i t s can be made. The cash economy has had, and i s having, a negative impact on the resource base of these countries i n other ways as w e l l . Through unregulated f o r e s t harvesting, the importation of temperate-style a g r i c u l t u r e , and by an ever-increasing r e l i a n c e upon imported technology and materials, resources are being l o s t . Loss of genetic d i v e r s i t y i n the 4 native flora (Soto 1987), degradation of s o i l f e r t i l i t y (Heuveldop and Espinoza 1983; Introduction), and the loss of indigenous knowledge about land management and species u t i l i z a t i o n are some of the resultant trends. As with the problem of shifting agriculture, there i s an urgent need to develop alternatives. Strategies of land use that protect the environment, provide for human needs, and create a future for the country are required. The search for productive, sustainable, and ecologically appropriate (i.e., land use which protects and enhances the s o i l resource) forms of land use for the tropics continues. This search increasingly focuses on agroforestry, because of the widespread recognition of the improvement in total production that can result from combining trees with agricultural crops. Formally advocated as an appropriate land-use strategy in 1977 (Bene et a l . , 1977), agroforestry i s just completing i t s f i r s t decade of f i e l d t r i a l s . A s c i e n t i f i c definition of agroforestry (Lungren 1979) stresses the fact that there i s : 1. "the deliberate growing of woody perennials on the same unit of land as agricultural crops and/or animals, either in some form of spatial mixture or in sequence"; and, 2. "a significant interaction (positive and/or negative) between woody and non-woody components of the system, either ecological and/or economical." A number of different forms of agroforestry exist. Several classifications of the different types of agroforestry have been proposed (Combe and Budowski 1979; Wiersum 1982), and currently the International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) i s attempting to catalogue the existing forms of this system in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Extensive bibliographies of agricultural systems in Asia in which trees play an explicit role are given by Spencer (1966) and Conklin (1957). Descriptions of similar practices in Africa are documented in MacDonald (1982), while for Latin America the Proceedings of the Workshop on Agroforestry Systems in Latin America (Workshop 1979) offers a partial 5 summary. One reason f o r the growing i n t e r e s t i n agroforestry i s the observation that t h i s i s what small farmers most widely p r a c t i s e i n the t r o p i c s . A study of current farming p r a c t i c e s i s a good s t a r t i n g point f o r any i n v e s t i g a t i o n of agroforestry f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons, two of which should be mentioned. F i r s t l y , a g r i c u l t u r a l development i n the t r o p i c s has re s u l t e d i n numerous f a i l u r e s to gain acceptance of new technology by farmers, and s t u d i e s 1 have shown the need to work with the systems that farmers themselves are already f a m i l i a r with (Norman 1983). Secondly, current a g r i c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s are often the r e s u l t of centuries of experimentation and adaptation. The f a c t that farmers p r a c t i s e agroforestry i s a powerful c u l t u r a l and economically-based reason fo r studying these p r a c t i c e s . These farmers t y p i c a l l y favour agroforestry systems because they are inherently multi-purpose systems, providing combinations of f r u i t , timber, firewood, animal fodder, shade, and other products (Jones and Pr i c e 1986). There i s strong evidence from e c o l o g i c a l research that cropping systems which incorporate trees or other perennial plants reduce erosion and nutrient leaching, lower the r i s k of pest and disease problems, improve the structure and f e r t i l i t y of the s o i l , and generally, make bette r use of e x i s t i n g resources, including l i g h t (Gliessman et a l . 1981; Trenbath 1974; Hart 1974; Ewel et a l . 1982). Such systems have lower operating costs and provide other b e n e f i t s , and there i s an extensive l i t e r a t u r e about them (see review by Chandler and Spurgeon 1979). One of the t r a d i t i o n a l forms of agroforestry that has drawn the at t e n t i o n of researchers i s the t r o p i c a l mixed garden (also c a l l e d the "home garden", " s o l a r " , "patio", "kitchen garden"). Much that has been written about the mixed garden has centered on Asi a (Anderson 1979; Terra Kansas State University's Annual Farming Systems Research Symposium (of which there have been five Proceedings published) and the publications of the International Rice Research Institute provide a thorough documentation of this and the development of the Farming Systems approach to agricultural development. 6 1953, 1954; Sommers 1978; Stoler 1978), though some work on gardens has been done in Latin America (Anderson 1950; Price 1982; Allison 1983; Romero 1981), including the Caribbean (Etifier-Chazono 1983; Kimber 1966; 1971). Principally a subsistence component of the small farm, these gardens have been shown to be important in providing a nutritionally balanced diet (Sommers 1978), and may also play an important role in the cash economy of the farm (Ambar and Karyono 1976). Mixed gardens are interesting from an agroforestry perspective, not only for their combination of trees with other cultivated plants, but also for the manner in which they are combined. Order or pattern from a standard agronomic point of view i s frequently non-existent, as suggested by the following description of a garden in Guatemala: "By European standards, the garden was disorderly, but productive; helter-skelter in general aspect but intelligent in i t s basic pattern. It was simultaneously an orchard, a vegetable garden, a medicinal garden, a flower garden, a bee yard, a garbage disposal and a compost heap. It was a continuous performance, constantly in use, continually being replanted ... Every week in the year would find the garden in actual production" (Anderson 1950). This arrangement appears, from a distance, much like a small woodlot together with an understory. This "natural" appearance raises the interesting question whether other attributes of natural forests are inherent to these gardens. A general definition of a mixed garden would describe the garden as: ... a small scale production system supplying plants and animals for consumption and other things which are expensive or not available in the markets, from cultivation, hunting, collecting, fishing or working off-farm. Mixed gardens tend to be situated around the farm house for reasons of security, convenience and special care. They tend to occupy land marginal to the cultivated areas and labour marginal to the main economic ac t i v i t i e s of the farm. Composed of species ecological adapted, mixed gardens are characterized by simple technology and a low capital input. (After Ninez 1987). Much of the literature on mixed gardens focuses on the area immediately around the farm house. There i s , however, a component to the mixed garden which i s often overlooked. I refer to this component as the "dispersed 7 garden". A dispersed garden i s comprised of those resources on the farm, outside the mixed garden, that provide i n c i d e n t a l b e n e f i t s f o r the farm household. For example, these resources may include f r u i t or firewood from trees used as shade over coffee or cocoa, or f r u i t or vegetables from plants growing amongst other crops from seed dispersed a c c i d e n t a l l y , medicines from native plants i n regrowth or natural f o r e s t , e t c . I bel i e v e t h i s i s an important concept as i t h i g h l i g h t s an a t t i t u d e towards resource use that i s f l e x i b l e and not s p a t i a l l y l i m i t e d . Though I do not deal with the concept extensively i n the t h e s i s , data are presented on the "dispersed garden" i n Chapter 5. Most of the a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e on mixed gardens i s d e s c r i p t i v e , most studies having looked at them i n i s o l a t i o n from other components of the farming system. In Costa Rica, where I worked i n agroforestry, there had been no systematic survey of mixed gardens, though some authors have reported casual observations on them (Wagner 1958; Newstrom and Rhode 1981; Troutner n.d.; M a f f i o l i and Holle 1982). The growing awareness that there are many lessons to be learned from the study of such mixed garden systems about land and i t s proper management, together with botanist Edgar Anderson's (1954) admonition that "as students of nature we often ignore our own d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p with the plant world f o r the study of the wild and ex o t i c " thus l e d to t h i s study of the t r o p i c a l mixed gardens of Costa Rica. 1.1 Questions and Hypotheses Although the primary i n t e r e s t i n the mixed garden was i n i t i a l l y i n terms of i t s e c o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s , two factors intervened to lead to a much broader emphasis. F i r s t l y , there was l i t t l e or no information a v a i l a b l e f o r Costa Rica (or for Central America, for that matter) on any aspect of the mixed garden, so there were few s t a r t i n g points to b u i l d upon. In addition, information that was a v a i l a b l e from other areas i n the region ( i . e . , Mexico and Honduras) was e i t h e r out-dated and i n s u f f i c i e n t , or from a s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l s e t t i n g as to warrant a separate 8 i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Secondly, agroforestry i s an applied science, and the study was conceived as having an applicable r e s u l t i n terms of the research and development p r i o r i t i e s of the Centro Agronomico T r o p i c a l de Investigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE), i n T u r r i a l b a , Costa Rica, where I was working at the time. CATIE i s an i n t e r n a t i o n a l research centre charged with i n v e s t i g a t i n g ways of improving the l i v i n g standard of the small farmer of Central America and the Dominican Republic. One of the p r i n c i p a l p r i o r i t i e s of the Agroforestry Program of CATIE i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l agroforestry systems i n Costa Rica (and other areas of i t s mandate) which might serve as f o c i f o r research and development (development here meaning the formulation of improved cropping systems f o r extension to farmers). I t was therefore decided to undertake a study of the e c o l o g i c a l , economical and agronomical aspects of the mixed garden with the objective of providing a basis f o r evaluating the mixed garden's po s s i b l e r o l e as a focus f o r future research i n agroforestry. The main question and hypotheses are framed i n terms of a resource management philosophy of e f f i c i e n t use of l i m i t e d resources within an e c o l o g i c a l l y sound land-use system. My concern i s with cropping systems f o r the t r o p i c s and t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r e c o l o g i c a l appropriateness. In p a r t i c u l a r , the research addresses the mixed garden as an example of an indigenous t r o p i c a l agroforestry system. The main question and supporting hypotheses addressed by t h i s study were formulated as follows: Main Question: What i s the role of the mixed garden on small farms i n Costa Rica, and i s this role amenable to development into a commercially-oriented, ecologically conservative cropping system? Hypotheses: HI: Mixed garden complexity and diversity parallels that of the corresponding ecological l i f e zone in which i t i s situated. Accounts of mixed gardens from A s i a (Soemarwoto et a l . 1975) and Mexico ( A l l i s o n 1983) have emphasized the s i m i l a r i t y of garden structure 9 to native natural forest and have hypothesized about the evolution of garden structure as a mimic of the natural forest. If the ecological factors which determine the structure of native natural forest significantly influence the evolution of cultural adaptations, such as cropping systems, then these influences should be apparent in differences in the structure of these cropping systems along an ecological gradient, such as from tropical lowland conditions to tropical premontane conditions. H2: The Holdridge World Li f e Zone system of ecological land cl a s s i f i c a t i o n i s an adequate method for stratifying variation i n structure and species composition of mixed gardens in Costa Rica. Holdridge's L i f e Zone classification i s widely used in Latin America (Holdridge & Tosi 1972). In Costa Rica i t is used as a basis for governmental land-use planning and in ecological research. However, i t s applicability to farming systems research, and particularly to the identification of differences between cases in agroforestry research, has not been tested. H3: Regardless of environment, the mixed garden has a higher cultural energy benefit-cost ratio than conventional monoculture cropping systems. Cropping systems are energy processing systems, taking solar radiation and converting i t to protein and carbohydrates for human use. However, modification of climax vegetative communities (where net primary productivity (and by implication, yield) approximates zero) into pre-climax communities (where net primary productivity i s positive) bears a cultural energy cost. This cost is the sum of the efforts to prevent the return of the plant community towards climax form, to maintain conditions for optimal growth, and to harvest and consume the yield. The greater the difference between the successional status of the cropping system and the climax system, the greater the inherent cultural energy cost. Mixed gardens, being essentially a successional community with a 10 complex mix of climax and e a r l y successional species, should be more energy e f f i c i e n t (both i n terms of u t i l i z i n g incoming a v a i l a b l e s o l a r r a d i a t i o n and i n r e q u i r i n g minimal c u l t u r a l energy support i r r e s p e c t i v e of the p a r t i c u l a r l i f e zone) than conventional monoculture cropping systems. H4: The output of the mixed garden can be improved. Preliminary evidence indicates that the management of mixed gardens leaves room f o r p r o d u c t i v i t y enhancement v i a a l t e r n a t i v e management s t r a t e g i e s . In some ways, t h i s i s s t a t i n g the obvious because almost i n a l l cases, management systems can be improved. However, i n s p i t e of the present a t t r i b u t e s of mixed gardens, i t was f e l t that major improvements are p o s s i b l e to education and garden planning, so the rather q u a l i t a t i v e statement i s posed as a hypothesis i n order to focus the section of the t h e s i s that addresses t h i s question. H5: The mixed garden e x i s t s as a supplementary ent e r p r i s e whose primary function i s t o absorb excess farm labour p o t e n t i a l . The apparent minimal input that goes in t o the management and maintenance of the mixed garden suggests that t h i s farm en t e r p r i s e i s non-competitive with cash cropping a c t i v i t i e s , but rather absorbs spare labour when a v a i l a b l e . There may be a l i m i t to changes i n garden inputs beyond which the mixed garden would be forced to j u s t i f y i t s existence i n terms of a cash cropping enterprise. 1.2 Organization of the Thesis Three approaches have been taken i n developing a data base to address the main question and hypotheses. These d i f f e r e n t approaches - a farm survey, farming system case studies, and a computer model of the mixed garden-farming system r e l a t i o n s h i p — a l l bear on the main question as well as providing a basis f or t e s t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested based on data gathered during the farm survey, while hypotheses 3 and 4 were tested from data derived from the case studies. Data from both the case study and the simulation model were 11 used to test hypothesis 5. The thesis i s organized into eleven chapters. The f i r s t i s a general introduction to the thesis. Chapter 2 is a brief literature review of the tropical mixed garden, while Chapter 3 presents the study design, and describes the study area and f i e l d methods. Data from the farm survey are discussed in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. Case study data are presented and discussed in Chapters 7, 8 and 9. Results of a modeling experiment form the basis for Chapter 10. Chapter 11 i s a general summary and conclusions. 12 CHAPTER 2 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TROPICAL MIXED GARDEN A g r i c u l t u r e , as an ancient a r t , began i n the t r o p i c s and has various s p e c i a l complexities, thereby reason of i t s long persistence i n those areas. A g r i c u l t u r e as a modern science developed i n the Temperate Zone. Most of our s c i e n t i f i c understanding of ag r i c u l t u r e comes from our experience during the l a s t few centuries with the r e l a t i v e l y simple a g r i c u l t u r a l problems of northern Europe and North America. When the average s c i e n t i f i c a g r i c u l t u r i s t goes to the t r o p i c s he has much more to unlearn than to teach, but he frequently seems to be unaware of that f a c t (Anderson, 1952; p. 142). 2.0 Pedigree and Lineage Gardens have long been an i n t e g r a l part of a g r i c u l t u r e i n Central America. This h i s t o r y i s undoubtedly greater than 5,000 years (Anderson 1952) and i s implicated i n the domestication of the important American annuals (quinua (Chenopodium quinoa), amaranth, peanut, Phaseolus, tepary, tobacco, cucurbits, gourd, sunflower and maize), not to mention perennials such as avocado, chirimoya, cacao and ramon. In the subsistence economies of the times, gardens may well have provided the f i r s t opportunity f o r a les s nomadic existence for hunter and gatherer s o c i e t i e s . From evidence of archaeological findings i n Panama (Linares 1976), "garden hunting", that i s , hunting w i l d l i f e a ttracted to these gardens, seems to have been an important source of animal protein f or these e a r l y a g r i c u l t u r i s t s . With the r i s e of "cash" economies l i k e the Maya, a g r i c u l t u r e d i v e r s i f i e d . D i v e r s i t y was manifested through the v a r i e t y of crops — seed, root and t r e e — that were c u l t i v a t e d (Sheets 1982). Hunting and gathering remained an important means of e x p l o i t i n g f o r e s t resources. Export crops included cacao, indigo, and balsam and provided the b a s i s f o r exchange between d i f f e r e n t Mayan c i t y - s t a t e s and between the Mayan c u l t u r e of Mesoamerica and the Inca of South America. The d i v e r s i t y of a g r i c u l t u r e i n Central America r e f l e c t s the " s p e c i a l complexities" of the t r o p i c s and the need to adapt to a wide v a r i e t y of 13 h a b i t a t s . Topography, s o i l s and regional r a i n f a l l d i f f e r e n c e s provide the basis f o r the d i v e r s i t y of habitats (e.g., following the Holdridge World L i f e Zone system of e c o l o g i c a l land c l a s s i f i c a t i o n there are 19 d i f f e r e n t l i f e zones within Costa Rica's t e r r i t o r y of 50,898 km2 alone). Edgar Anderson (1952) has said i t i s not merely i t s usefulness which makes a crop a crop, but more than anything e l s e i t i s i t s amazing a d a p t a b i l i t y . I believe the same can be said of agroecosystems l i k e the mixed garden. Time, i t i s said, i s the ultimate t e s t , a t e s t which the mixed garden has managed to endure. C r i s i s i s another t e s t and the a r r i v a l of Spanish Conquistadors i n the e a r l y 1500's, along with the plague, smallpox and other "foreign" diseases very nearly depopulated the native peoples of the area while those who survived were taken as c h a t t e l s or sold i n t o slavery. Indigenous a g r i c u l t u r e must have suffered a tremendous blow i n the face of t h i s onslaught. However, Central America was not the quick source of wealth the Spaniards were looking f o r . And, as time passed and the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n Europe changed, "Central Americans" were l e f t to t h e i r own resources and many turned to a g r i c u l t u r e (MacLeod 1973). The Spaniards brought with them a new technology which included metal implements. In addition, they imposed t h e i r own r e l i g i o u s , s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l manners on the indigenous people. Native a g r i c u l t u r e saw the in t r o d u c t i o n of the machete, axe, plough and hoe. I t saw the i n t r o d u c t i o n of horses, c a t t l e , pigs, asses, and chickens. A wide v a r i e t y of plants ( i n c l u d i n g sugarcane, c i t r u s f r u i t s , r i c e , coffee and yams, to name but a few), were added to the e x i s t i n g native r e p e r t o i r e . Accumulating wealth was s t i l l the primary goal of the Spaniards and other Europeans who were attracted to Central America. Because the region lacked extensive mineral wealth, e x p l o i t a t i o n of land became the f o c a l point f o r a s e r i e s of boom and bust export i n d u s t r i e s . Cacao was the f i r s t crop to be exploited by the Spaniards (MacLeod 1973). This e x p l o i t a t i o n was p r i m a r i l y based upon the appropriation of p r e - e x i s t i n g 14 plantings established by the natives and the c o n s c r i p t i o n of these same natives as labour. Abuse of native labour, mismanagement and natural d i s a s t e r s l e d to the decline of the cacao boom. Indigo, f o r export to the Old World, followed as the next route to quick wealth. Indigo was a promising crop, but f o r a complex of reasons i t was never able to s u c c e s s f u l l y e s t a b l i s h i t s e l f (MacLeod 1973), and eventually i t s production was discontinued. The e f f e c t of these Spanish ventures into farming was to bind the people of the region more and more in t o an a g r i c u l t u r a l economy. In general, however, the imposition of European-style a g r i c u l t u r e was a f a i l u r e except f o r those few farmers who had large holdings and had s u f f i c i e n t resources to overcome the problems associated with a system that was b a s i c a l l y inappropriate for the t r o p i c a l environment. For the majority, farming meant a subsistence existence based on indigenous a g r i c u l t u r a l techniques. The neat and ordered garden of Spain became much more l i k e the multi-purpose melange of plants and animals t y p i c a l of indian gardens. Complementary to the mixed garden was the s l a s h and burn c u l t i v a t i o n of r i c e or maize and beans. In the world of today, the farming systems of Central America, and i n p a r t i c u l a r Costa Rica, have d i v e r s i f i e d further with the in t r o d u c t i o n of export-oriented crops l i k e coffee, sugarcane, tobacco, chayote and cotton, t o name a few. The mixed garden, however, continues to play a r o l e — one that has changed over time and one that i s s t i l l subject to change as these s o c i e t i e s evolve. 2.1 H i s t o r i c a l Development of Interest i n the T r o p i c a l Mixed Garden The t r o p i c a l home garden or mixed garden has been recognized f o r some time as an important component of farming systems (Terra 1953; Holdridge 1959). Continued recognition i s evidenced by two recent i n t e r n a t i o n a l conferences on the t r o p i c a l home garden (UNU/lOE/CATIE 1985; UNU/UP/UCR 1987). 15 Indonesian home gardens have been among the earliest and most frequently studied, thanks to the efforts of Pelzer (1945), Terra (1953), Soemarwoto et a l . (1975) and Christanty (1985), and others. More recently, some results of a study that could well be the model for future studies were published (Michon, Mary and Bompard 1986). This multi-disciplinary effort reaffirms the continued importance of the home garden to small farmer economy in Indonesia. Elsewhere, in Asia (Nair and Sreedharan 1986) and Africa (Fernandes, Oktingati and Maghembe 1983), the home garden i s receiving increasing attention. The focus of this thesis is the home garden as found on small farms in Costa Rica. Philip Wagner, a University of California geographer, was probably the f i r s t to document aspects of Costa Rican home gardens. Wagner's (1958) "Nicoya: A Cultural Geography" characterized the Nicoyan farmstead in the following manner: The several buildings are grouped about a dooryard, or solar, marked off by a fence or hedge. The solar i s always devoid of herbaceous vegetation of any kind and is adorned with a few trees, usually guacimo (Ouazuma ulmifolia), almendro (Terminalla catappa), mora (Chlorophora tinctoria), or some other which w i l l provide auxiliary fodder for animals. There may also be a few sour or sweet orange or lemon trees. The trees of the solar are roosts for fowl, shade for pigs, racks for laundry, and sources of firewood for the house. ... In the solar much of the work of the house is done - hulling rice, preparing beans and maize both for food and for planting, making and repairing furniture and implements, cutting and storing stovewood, and so on. In addition to this description, Wagner provides several garden diagrams that are reminiscent of those published by Edgar Anderson for an Indian garden in Guatemala (1950) and for a Honduran garden (1954). In his conclusions, Wagner noted that the opportunities and po s s i b i l i t i e s of the Nicoyan garden culture have been ignored. These opportunities include the increased raising of pigs and poultry, while the 16 missed p o s s i b i l i t i e s involve development of a system of land use that requires " l i t t l e land and slight care and yield abundantly". Given the lack of interest by government and policy makers, and the "process of dispossession of subsistence farmers" by the commercial export crop interests, Wagner (1958) held out l i t t l e future for this agroecosystem. Holdridge (1959) also tried to bring attention to the home garden in Costa Rica in his paper, "Ecological indications of the need for a new approach to tropical land use". His attraction to these gardens was due in large part to their multi-species, forest-like character, which seemed to mimic the natural environment. However, Holdridge did l i t t l e more than c a l l attention to them. He did not present any information about them. Another twenty years were to pass before an American graduate student, Melinda Troutner, working at the Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE), developed an interest in local home gardens in Costa Rica. In an unpublished paper, Troutner (ca. 1979) described 23 home gardens in Guayabo de Turrialba and eight in the Atlantic community of Puerto Viejo de Limon. In general, she found a st r a t i f i e d , modestly diverse species mixture. Layout of the garden was idiosyncratic, and labour and other inputs were minimal. Another unpublished report (Maffioli and Holle 1982) on home gardens in the communities of Orotina and San Mateo described essentially what were species-diverse orchard gardens. These orchard gardens had a distinct commercial character, in addition to their subsistence functions, though the details of this were never investigated. Developing from an interest in complex, traditional agroecosystems, a more thorough and geographically widespread study of Costa Rican home gardens was initiated in 1982 and became the basis for this thesis. The study design, research locations and the research methods are set out in the following chapter. 17 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODS AND STUDY LOCATIONS 3.0 Research Design 3.0.1 A Farming System Framework A g r i c u l t u r a l research has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been product or crop oriented. This approach, while appropriate to those s i t u a t i o n s i n which monoculture i s an e f f e c t i v e cropping strategy, i s not r e a l i s t i c i n the context of t r o p i c a l a g r i c u l t u r e . Consequently, the research presented here has adhered as c l o s e l y as possible to a "systems" approach, using as i t s framework the Farming Systems Research Methodology (FSRM). FSRM represents a change from the more t r a d i t i o n a l r e d u c t i o n i s t approach of the past and has ari s e n from experiences gained during the s o - c a l l e d "green re v o l u t i o n " . A major impetus behind t h i s change was the experience of researchers at the International Rice Research I n s t i t u t e (IRRI), s i t u a t e d i n Los Banos, the P h i l i p p i n e s , who found that t h e i r attempts to introduce h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s of r i c e often f a i l e d . These f a i l u r e s l e d to a more thorough examination of t h e i r c l i e n t ' s farming systems. With a more complete understanding of the farmer's motives and h i s management environment and strategy, IRRI was able to focus t h e i r research on the production of complete agroecosystem packages acceptable to farmers. In addition, they helped e s t a b l i s h FSRM. Research i n t o agroecosystems has undergone a t r a n s i t i o n from the more northern temperate a g r i c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n of what plant breeders can do at an a g r i c u l t u r a l research s t a t i o n to looking at what a p a r t i c u l a r group of c l i e n t farmers are a c t u a l l y doing. As Steiner (1982) (also Christanty 1989) has recommended, programmes are now aimed more at "the improvement of e x i s t i n g cropping systems and not t h e i r replacement by e n t i r e l y new systems". This a t t i t u d e i s at the heart of the "farming system" approach. For a more complete review of t h i s approach i n the context of agroforestry i n Costa Rica, see Jones and P r i c e (1985). 18 In Central America, the Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacxon y Ensenanza (CATIE) has been the principal agent in agricultural research. One of CATIE's notable early successes, from a farming systems perspective, was their research into and consequent improvement of a traditional E l Salvadorean small-farming system of multiple cropping (Hildebrand and French 1972). The importance of CATIE's work i s reflected in the s t a t i s t i c s on the importance of small farms in Central America, where farmers with less than 5 hectares "operate 80% of Guatemala's farms, with 85% in E l Salvador, 60% in Honduras, 43% in Nicaragua and 46% in Costa Rica" (Soria 1976). However, lacking in a l l of the Costa Rican farming system studies, whether animal, annual or perennial-crop oriented, i s any discussion of the mixed garden component of the farm system. This omission was not for lack of recognition of the mixed garden, but rather from an overly disciplinarian focus on particular farming subsystems (Avila 1983). Consequently, with a few exceptions, there i s l i t t l e published information on the mixed garden. In one of the f i r s t studies of traditional multi-species perennial cropping systems in Costa Rica, Sellers (1983) examined 40 farms in the Tucurrique area and found predominantly commercial farming systems. These systems were structured around coffee, pejibaye [Bactris gasipaes) and banana. He found that the principal attributes of these systems were: 1. Long-term pr o f i t a b i l i t y , but lower short-run return; 2. Income st a b i l i t y in the face of price fluctuations; 3. Subsistence provisioning as a fall-back economic strategy; 4. Permanence; 5. Minimal maintenance; 6. Resistance to pathogens and pests; and 7. Tolerance for climatic (rainfall) variation. Similar characteristics have been ascribed to the mixed garden (Wagner 1955; Anderson 1954; Ninez 1987), though they have yet to be 19 effectively demonstrated. Consequently, as indicated in the Chapter 1, this thesis addresses several specific hypotheses related to the mixed garden agroecosystem. Data to test these hypotheses were collected by means of a farm survey, a series of farming system case studies, and a farming system simulation model. The research methods and study locations for these separate activities are described below. 3.1 The Small Farm Survey A questionnaire was adapted from Navarro1 (1977) and Friedrich (1977). A preliminary version was tested by staff of CATIE's Annual Crops Department in the Guapiles region of Costa Rica, and used subsequently in a farm survey carried out as a part of the thesis study between August and October of 1982. Two hundred and twenty-five farms were selected randomly from l i s t s provided by the Census Bureau of Costa Rica. These l i s t s corresponded to farms in one of five selected Holdridge Li f e Zones in Costa Rica. A table of random numbers was used to select farms from these l i s t s . No attempt was made to relate the number of small farms chosen for a particular l i f e zone with the population of small farmers for that l i f e zone. A l l interviews were in Spanish and were conducted by a Costa Rican forestry technician, Miss E l i a Mora, who had extensive work experience in Costa Rica. During the interviews I acted as an observer. Interviews were focused on obtaining the following types of information: 1. Li f e Zone: 1.1 Presence or absence of a mixed garden; 2. Characteristics of the farm household: 2.1 Age of farmer and other members of the household 2.2 Number of persons liv i n g on the farm 2.3 Number of persons liv i n g off-farm but contributing to farm income 2.4 Cultural background of family ; 3. Labour (on and off farm); 4. Land use; Or. Luis Navarro and st a f f at C.A.T.I.E. provided technical assistance i n preparation and testing of the questionnaire used. 20 5. Use of petro-chemical products; 6. Tenancy; 7. Mixed garden characteristics; and 8. Dispersed garden characteristics. 3.2 Description of Survey Locations The investigation was carried out in five of Holdridge's l i f e zones in order to uncover possible regional differences that reflect variation in ecological factors. The five l i f e zones chosen represent 53% of Costa Rican territory and some of the most important agriculture areas (Figure Holdridge and Tosi, Jr. (1972) describe the l i f e zone system: As a comprehensive, generic, world ecosystem approach to environmental classification.... It permits direct comparison, on both a qualitative and a quantitative scale, of a l l these ecosystematic parameters (i.e., climatic, physiographic, hydrologic, edaphic, biological, and socio-cultural) between any two places on the earth's land surfaces... Fully applied on an international scale, i t s predictive capability i s almost unlimited. The five l i f e zones ut i l i z e d in the survey included the Tropical Dry Forest (TDF), the Tropical Moist Forest (TMF), the Tropical Wet Forest (TWF), the Tropical Premontane Wet Forest, the Warm Transition (TPWF,T) and the Tropical Premontane West Forest (TPWF). Descriptions of the natural vegetation of these areas can be found in Hartshorn et a l . (1982). Within each of the five Holdridge l i f e zones three different geographic centres were chosen around which farms were surveyed. These different l o c a l i t i e s are briefly described below, (a) Tropical Dry Forest Canas: A large town in the northwest of Costa Rica dominated by large holdings dedicated to rice production or cattle, principally cattle. Small farms in this area are generally subsistence operations. Pitahaya: A small village surrounded by large Haciendas dedicated to sugarcane production. Most men in the village work as paid labourers in the cane fields and own only their home and garden area. However, some 3-1). 21 F i g u r e 3-1, Maps o f t h e f i v e H o l d r i d g e l i f e z o n e s i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y a n d t h e l o c a t i o n o f s a m p l i n g c e n t r e s w i t h i n each l i r e z o n e . 22 have carved farm areas out of the dryer parts of the nearby coastal mangrove swamp and cultivate rice, melons and plantain or maize and beans. Cabo Blanco: A small town on the inside coastal border of the Nicoya Peninsula. The l i f e zone only occupies a narrow strip along the coast, some of which i s occupied by small farmers trying to make a subsistence l i v i n g . Small farms are not common because of the need to use external inputs in order to obtain sufficient production. (b) Tropical Moist Forest Hojancha: Large town in the center of the Nicoyan Peninsula. Varied farming interests surround this town, including communities of indigenous peoples. Farms include the whole range of purely commercial to purely subsistence operations. San Mateo/Orotina: Two large and modern communities near the northwestern central area of the country. Tourism is an important element in local commerce. Farms tend to concentrate on the production of tree fru i t s in mixed gardens; disposition of production is f a c i l i t a t e d by the nearby Interamerican Highway and the flow of tourists through the area. Pto. Vargas: This community i s on the southeastern Caribbean coast of Costa Rica. Farm production i s primarily dedicated to cacao. Cacao production has been severely limited because of Monilia, a fungus which attacks the f r u i t . However, production seems to be increasing as more and more farmers adapt to the new conditions and the different approach which is required in order to sustain production. (c) Tropical Wet Forest Herradura/Jaco: These two adjoining communities are situated on the northwestern central coastal plain of Costa Rica. Primarily a beach resort area, agriculture i s limited because of poor s o i l s . As a result, small farms are not common; rather larger holdings are the norm with land dedicated to extensive grazing of cattle. Pto. Viejo, Sarapiqui: Pto. Viejo i s found on the northeastern coastal plain area of the country. A variety of farming operations are 23 found in this area, including some resettlement projects. Annual crops and cattle are the dominant agroecosystems on farms of a l l sizes. Guapiles: This location i s a medium-size town servicing one of the main areas dedicated to basic staple (maize and beans) production. It has been the focus of a number of agricultural projects directed towards improving production and farmer welfare. (d) Tropical Premontane Wet Forest, Warm Transition Ciudad Cortez: This town is situated in the southwestern coastal area of Costa Rica. Once an active production center for cacao, farms have only recently (i.e., since ca. 1979) recovered from a loss of production due to Manilla. Rice production on a large scale has become a profitable alternative for those farms with sufficient capital. Rio Frio: At the time of the survey many of the farms in this area had only recently been established as a part of a resettlement project. The area is dominated by large banana plantations. Farmers in the resettlement project have been encouraged to grow annual crops or to develop cattle operations. Siquirres: Cacao and banana plantations are the principal' farming operations in this area. As in the other cacao-producing areas, Monilia has reduced production and forced the adoption of a different, more labour intensive approach to management. Secondary crops used as shade over the cacao plants have taken on greater importance on these farms. (e) Tropical Premontane Wet Forest Rivas: This small community was once an active coffee-growing area. However, with the withdrawal of government subsidies of f e r t i l i z e r s , production has fallen. The area's farms are now largely depressed and reliant on secondary f r u i t crops used as shade over the coffee to supplement income. Puriscal: An area dominated by a h i l l y topography and soils extremely susceptible to erosion. Coffee and extensive grazing dominate farming in Puriscal. The extensive grazing, poorly managed pasture, and h i l l y 24 terrain with erosion-prone soils have led to major environmental problems for the area. Puriscal i s one of the areas where agroforestry research i s being applied to find suitable alternative agroecosystems. Grecia/Sarchi: This area i s one of the best coffee-producing areas in the country. Situated on f e r t i l e volcanic soils on the Central Plateau area of Costa Rica, farms generally practise a highly intensive form of production which emphasizes no shade and large amounts of external inputs. Sugarcane i s also produced on many farms in the area. 3.3 Survey Methods 3.3.1 Data Collection A s t r a t i f i e d random sampling procedure was used to select farms from five Holdridge Life Zones. Criteria for farm selection were that the farms were 1) owner-operated, 2) between 0.5 and 10 hectares in size, and 3) that they were within one of the five Holdridge Life Zones used for the study. Costa Rican census data (1973) were used to select a random sample of farms, 45 from each Li f e Zone, which met the above c r i t e r i a . Farmers were interviewed on their farms using the questionnaire (Appendix 1) described above. A l l interviews were carried out by an experienced interviewer 1 and supervised by the author. In cases where the farmer was unable to give accurate measures of mixed garden size or of species identification, these were obtained from direct observation. Mixed garden area was determined by surveying the perimeter with a meter tape and compass. In a limited number of cases, gardens were mapped and tree heights and canopy diameters were measured. Specimens of species not identified in the f i e l d were collected for later identification at the National Herbarium of Costa Rica. 3.3.2 Analytical Techniques Simple s t a t i s t i c a l summaries (i.e., means and standard deviations) T h e i n t e r v i e w e r w a s a t e c h n i c a l c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e w h o w a s f l u e n t i n l o c a l d i a l e c t s a n d i d i o m s , h a d e x p e r i e n c e i n i n t e r v i e w i n g f a r m e r s , a n d h a d w o r k e d t h r o u g h o u t C o s t a R i c a o n f o r e s t r y a n d b o t a n i c a l r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s . 25 are presented for a l l of the survey variables. These summaries are given in a series of tables which allow comparison of the results for each of the five Holdridge Life Zones. Sta t i s t i c a l tests for significant differences (p<.05), both for "between-life-zones" and "within-life-zones", were carried out using grouped box plot displays. Grouped box plot displays are a graphical analogue to the one-way analysis of variance, although i t uses rank order instead of means. Each box plot characterizes the location, spread, skewness, t a i l length and outlying data points. An important advantage of this technique, in addition to allowing rapid comparisons of data sets, is i t s resistance to a few (i.e., up to 25% of the data) "wild" data values (Emerson and Strenio, 1983). This attribute is particularly of value in the present .' case where the comparisons being made are based upon relatively small data sets which often contain a small number of extreme values. Summary st a t i s t i c s and box plot displays were derived using the SYSTAT commercial s t a t i s t i c s package run on an IBM-XT. Multivariate methods were used for analysis of species presence /absence data and to determine the degree of f i t between the farm groupings obtained from the farm surveys and the five different Holdridge Li f e Zones. An i n i t i a l principal coordinates analysis (PCOA) was carried out as a preliminary measure to transform the original variables into a smaller set of uncorrelated variables. The PCOA was performed on a Euclidean distance matrix among the 175 farms (with mixed gardens) calculated from the presence-absence records for 236 species. These new variables, or principal components as they are often referred to, contain a l l the variance of the original data but are ordered in such a way that the f i r s t principal component accounts for the most variance, the second principal component for most of the remaining variance, and so on. This transformation yielded a set of uncorrelated substitute species variables for subsequent canonical and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). This step i s recommended to stabilize the canonical correlation solution 26 by reducing the dependency of the results on the particular sample in hand (Gittins 1985). Following the i n i t i a l PCOA, which was performed on the f u l l original data matrix consisting of 175 cases (i.e., farms) and 236 variables (i.e., species), the number of variables was reduced to 66. Reduction of the number of species followed selection of species which had a minimum frequency of 15% in at least one l i f e zone. The reduced data matrix was the basis for subsequent MANOVA which followed the simple model of: Y1,Y2,Y3 = A + E; where Y1,Y2,Y3 designate the f i r s t three PCOA axes, A specifies the variance due to group association and E specifies residual (unexplained) variance. Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) and 95 percent confidence ellipses were also based upon this reduced data matrix. An i n i t i a l MANOVA was carried out on the original data set (of 236 variables) according to the model: Y1,Y2,Y3 = A + B(A) + E; where A specifies the variance due to group association, B equals the variance due to sub-group association and E i s the residual (unexplained) variance. A l l analyses were performed using programs from the ANOVAR, MIDAS and PLOT software packages supported by the University of British Columbia Computing Centre. The PCOA program was developed by Dr. G. Bradfield of the U.B.C. Department of Botany. 3.4 Description of the Case Study Areas The farm survey was followed by a more intensive study of six farms, three in each of two contrasting l i f e zones. These two l i f e zones, the Tropical Dry Forest (TDF) and the Tropical Premontane Wet Forest, Transition to Warm (TPWF,T) were represented by the communities of Pitahaya de Puntarenas and San Juan Sur de Turrialba, respectively. The locations of these two communities are shown on Figure 3-2. 3.4.1 Ecological Profiles The ecological profiles presented here describe the important climatic variables, the soils and the general landscape of the two farming communities. Figure 3-2. Map showing relative locations of the communities of Pitahaya and San Juan Sur. 28: 3.4.1.1 Pitahaya - Tropical Dry Forest Zone Typically, Pitahaya experiences a dry season of l i t t l e or no rain during December through April. The long-term yearly precipitation for the area i s about 1600 mm (Figure 3-3). Monthly rates of evaporation, as measured by a Class A evaporation pan, are relatively high a l l year round (Figure 3-3). Average monthly temperatures fluctuate l i t t l e around a value of 27 degrees centigrade. Relative humidity, on the other hand, reflects the pattern of r a i n f a l l with a low of 70 percent during the dry season and a high approaching 90 percent during the rainy months (Figure 3-4). The general nature of the soils being farmed in the TDF zone are given in Table 3-1. For the most part these farms have been developed Table 3-1. General characteristics of the soil s i n the area of Pitahaya de Puntarenas (OPSA 1979). ORDER: Entisol SUBORDER: Aquents GROUP: Typic Sulfaquent Tropic Fluvaquent Elevation: Drainage: Texture - S o i l : - Subsoil: Permeability: pH: 0 - 10 m Very Poor Loam Loam Moderately Slow Slightly Acid Slope: Depth to rock: Field capacity: Flooding: Base saturation: 0 - 2 % >2 m 15 - 20 cm frequent high AGRONOMIC LIMITATIONS FOR: Perennial crops: Very strong Pasture: Very strong Annual crops: Very strong Mechanization: Very strong SUSCEPTIBILITY TO EROSION: Low in the seasonally flooded part of a mangrove swamp. Consequently, a system of drainage ditches i s normally required to control inundations. There are two sources of flooding: seasonal invasions of sea water due to high tides, and flooding due to high water flows and changes in the course of the nearby Aranjuez river. Flooding due to the Aranjuez river has had Figure 3-3. Monthly p r e c i p i t a t i o n and evaporation for 1983, with long-term averages for p r e c i p i t a t i o n superimposed, as recorded at the Puntarenas meteorological s t a t i o n . Figure 3-4. Long-term averages for r e l a t i v e humidity (*) and temperature ( C ) , recorded at the Puntarenas meteorological s t a t i o n . 350 300 + 250 + 200 + 150 + 100 + Euaporat ion P r e c i p i t a t ion Long-term P r e c i p i t a t i o n 90 j 80 -70 60 • 50--40 30 20 10 0 R e l a t i v e Humid i t y OO — T e m p e r a t u r e 30 25 + 20 + 15 + 10 + 5 — I — I — I — I — I — l — I — I — I — i — l — \ J F M A M J J A S O N D M o n t h r o J.0 vo 30> beneficial effects due to the deposition of sand which has improved s o i l structure. Flooding by the river has also resulted in a reduction in the sal i n i t y of soils in certain areas. The landscape (Figure 3-5) of the Pitahaya area i s dominated by the cultivation of sugarcane. Fields in this area are f l a t , becoming gently r o l l i n g as they approach the foothills of the Tilaran mountains. Trees are restricted to mixed gardens, the borders of streams and rivers, the mangrove swamp and the occasional shade trees in pastures. 3.4.1.2 San Juan Sur - Tropical Premontane Wet Forest, Transition Annual precipitation averages 2700 mm, the distribution of which i s shown in Figure 3-6. There i s a relatively dry period during January, February, March and April, with long-term monthly r a i n f a l l averaging more than 200 mm during the rest of the year. Evaporation (Figure 3-6) averages near 100 mm most of the year and can result in periods of drought, particularly during March. Relative humidity i s high a l l year round, averaging close to 90 percent during the wet season and 85 percent in the dry season (Figure 3-7) . Average day-time temperatures fluctuate between 20 and 22 degrees centigrade, the highest temperatures occurring just before the onset of the rainy season. The soils in the San Juan Sur area are made up of weathered volcanic deposits and are generally moderate to quite f e r t i l e . A characterization of these soils i s given in Table 3-2. These soils are suitable for both perennial and annual crops. However, due to the h i l l y terrain (Figure 3-8) these soils are very susceptible to erosion i f not managed properly. Low s o i l pH, which affects the accessibility of nutrients by plants, and thus productivity, i s another limitation i f liming i s not carried out. 3.4.2 Village Profiles 3.4.2.1 Pitahaya The community of Pitahaya was at one time a prosperous trading centre 31 Aerial view of the community of Pitahaya and surrounding landscape, including the mangrove swamp. F i g u r e 3-6. Monthly p r e c i p i t a t i o n and e v a p o r a t i o n f o r 1983, w i t h l o n g - t e r m averaqes f o r p r e c i p a t a t i o n super imposed, aa r e c o r d e d 450-r a t t h e CATIE m e t e o r o l o g i c a l s t a t i o n . 400 -350 -E 300 + u a P 250 o r * 200 i o It Euaporat ion Long-term ra infa l l Precipitat ion 90 89.5 89 88.5 87.5 87 86.5 86 85.5 85 84.5 F i g u r e 3-7. Long-term a v e r a g e s f o r r e l a t i v e h u m i d i t y (%) and temper a t u r e (°C) as r e c o r d e d a t the CATIE m e t e o r o l o g i c a l s t a t i o n . T 2 5 -20 Relat iue Humidity OO -^-flir Temperature H h H 1 1 1 1 h 15 ° C 10 -5 0 F M f i M J J P S O N D u> t o Month 33 F i g u r e 3-8. A e r i a l view o f the community o f San Juan Sur and the s u r r o u n d i n g l a n d s c a p e . 34 Table 3-2. General characteristics of the soi l s i n the area of San Juan Sur de Turrialba (OPSA 1979). ORDER: Inceptisol SUBORDER: Tropepts GROUP: Typic Humitropept Andic Humitropept Oxic Dystropept Elevation: Drainage: Texture - S o i l : Good Clay Clay 900 - 1200 m Depth to rock: >2 m Field capacity: 20 cm Flooding: Never Base saturation: Medium Slope: 5 - 30% - Subsoil: Permeab i1 i t y : pH: Moderately slow Strongly acid AGRONOMIC LIMITATIONS FOR: Perennial crops: Slight Pasture: Slight Annual crops: Moderate Mechanization: Strong SUSCEPTIBILITY TO EROSION: High for the movement of agricultural goods from the surrounding countryside to markets in other parts of the country. However, with the construction of the Interamerican Highway in the 1930's, Pitahaya became economically isolated. Isolation brought economic decline and dependence of landless people upon the surrounding Haciendas for employment. This has led to the development of a classic case of latifundia, where land and wealth are controlled by a relatively few people. The community suffered a further disruption when a severe flood in 1973 forced the government to arrange the relocation of the town about a kilometer further inland. Although most people in the community only own the small parcel of land assigned to them by the government during the relocation of the village, some have developed small farms in the nearby mangrove swamp. Although legally prohibited, this activity has been formally condoned by the government for those farmers who have shown a serious commitment to farming. < Pitahaya is a community of 414 people distributed among 80 occupied homes in the village. The age distribution of the population is given in Table 3-3. About half of the population of Pitahaya consists of school 35 Table 3-3. Age distribution of the residents of Pitahaya de Puntarenas." Age Group Number - 5 yr 85 6 - 9 46 10 - 14 64 Male Female 15-19 39 19 20 20 - 44 122 66 56 45 - 64 ' 37 23 14 65+ 21 9 12 *Source: Community health care worker. age children. Of the rest there are 109 males between the ages of 15 and 64 years — the working population. Some of these males are in secondary school and some seek seasonal employment outside of the community during part of the year. When the village relocated, the government arranged a land trade with the Hacienda La Irma. Consequently, the village i s situated adjacent to the Hacienda and is surrounded by private land, most of which is occupied by sugarcane fi e l d s . Since the different households became established at the same time, the trees planted in the mixed gardens are very uniform in terms of age and size. About 90% of the households have mixed gardens, this situation lends a forest-like aspect to the community, which contrasts with the-surrounding agricultural landscape of sugarcane fi e l d s . 3.4.2.2 San Juan Sur San Juan Sur is part of a coffee growing area opened up by the construction of a railroad between the Capital of San Jose and the Port of Limon on the Caribbean coast during the early 1900's. Contrasting the situation in Pitahaya, San Juan Sur is predominantly a community of small farms. The population of San Juan Sur is 732 distributed among 133 occupied homes. Of the 133 households, 52 (39%) have farms which they manage. The remaining households are dependent upon finding work on local farms or 3.6-businesses or in the nearby town of Turrialba. The distribution of ages for the residents of the community i s given in Table 3-4. There are 209 males between the ages of 15 and 64, though the available labour force is much greater because of the participation of women during the coffee harvest. Migrant labour also augments the general labour force during the peak berry-picking periods. Unlike Pitahaya, with i t s central square, the homes of San Juan Sur are distributed along a two to three kilometer stretch of road. These houses are variable in age and construction. Older homes are simple Table 3--4. Age Sur distribution of the de Turrialba.* residents of San Juan Age Group Number — 5 yr 127 6 - 9 83 10 - 14 90 Male Female 15 - 19 101 49 52 20 - 44 246 129 117 45 - 64 64 31 33 65+ 21 12 9 *Source: Community health care worker. structures of wooden plank, while the newer homes are built out of concrete block. About 65% of the households in the community have mixed gardens, which, unlike Pitahayan gardens, are very diverse in size and composition. 3.5 Case Study Methods 3.5.1 Selection of Case Studies A variety of c r i t e r i a were used in selecting farms for case studies. These c r i t e r i a included farmer's cooperation, village orientation (i.e., farming), contrasting l i f e zones, accessibility, garden size, farm size, and garden diversity. The latter three c r i t e r i a were used to ensure that the range of diversity evident in the survey data was represented in the case studies. Although a limited study of particular farms in two l i f e zones 37: cannot be expected to represent a l l small farming situations in the different zones canvassed during the farm survey, the farms chosen are f e l t to be broadly representative of many small farms in Costa Rica. 3.5.2 Farming Systems Analysis 3.5.2.1 Economic Performance Weekly v i s i t s permitted collection of both socio-economic and ecological data from each farm. The socio-economic data were collected on the basis of a weekly questionnaire (Chow 1982; Dillon and Hardaker 1977) and observations, which summarized the household's a c t i v i t i e s . These ac t i v i t i e s included flows of cash, labour and materials through the household and the different enterprises/agroecosystems (including the mixed garden) that made up the farming system. Economic analyses of the input-output data from the case studies were conducted to assess both whole-farm and individual agroecosystem performance. Three types of analysis were conducted: cash-flow analysis, benefit-cost analysis, and relative economic performance analysis (Dillon and Hardaker 1977; Guerra 1982). 3.5.2.2 Ecological Description Ecological data gathered included a detailed mapping of the mixed garden, weekly l i t t e r f a l l collections, a study of weed growth, and a series of measurements and observations to characterize s o i l f e r t i l i t y , photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), vegetation structure, and the type of management practices. The purpose of this data collection was to provide a basis for comparing gardens both within- and between-life zones. Mapping of the gardens was done to scale to the nearest decimeter, according to a grid established with a pair of meter tapes. The locations of a l l woody plants and permanent structures (e.g., chicken coops, compost pits, etc.) were recorded. The locations of non-woody plants were also recorded where these were being cultivated and where they were a permanent presence. Shade and direct weeding are the principal controls to weed growth 38 in gardens. In order to look at the effect of weed growth in the absence of weed control, a simple study was carried out. In two of the gardens in each of the two l i f e zones, 24 half-meter square rectangular plots were la i d out at random. In one of the gardens, an additional 24 plots surrounded by chicken wire were established to examine the effect of the chickens kept penned in this garden. Before i n i t i a t i n g the experiment, a machete was passed slightly below the s o i l surface within and around the plots and a l l vegetation removed. No attempt was made to remove deep-roots. The regrowth of weed species on these plots was quantified by harvesting a l l vegetation on three randomly-selected plots (six in the garden with 48 plots) at monthly intervals for six months. A l l vegetation harvested was separated into stems, flowers and fr u i t s , weighed fresh, and then dried at 70 °C for 48 hours and re-weighed. During the f i n a l harvest, a l l 24 (48) plots were harvested, thereby quantifying regrowth of various ages on already-harvested plots. L i t t e r f a l l was measured in the six gardens over the period of a year and provided a comparative measure of one of the dynamic aspects of the garden ecosystem. Circular 0.5 m2, randomly-placed l i t t e r traps were used. These traps consisted of a metal hoop supported by three legs and lined with a fine plastic mesh. I n i t i a l l y ten of these were installed in the four larger gardens while five were placed in the two smaller gardens. After determining the var i a b i l i t y of the data, these numbers were increased to 16 in four gardens and eight in two gardens. L i t t e r was collected once a week during the regular farm v i s i t s . For l i t t e r p a r t i a l l y in and partly out of the traps, only the portion in the trap was taken. A l l l i t t e r was then dried for 48 hours at 70 °C and then weighed. Soil f e r t i l i t y was assessed in each of the six gardens and included an analysis of total percent N (micro-kjeldahl), available P (Olsen), exchangeable K, Ca and Mg (ammonium acetate), organic matter (Walkley-Black), and pH. In addition to the garden soils, samples were also taken, where possible, from an adjacent agroecosystem on the farm. Six 39 random samples, taken at 0-5 cm and 5-45 cm depths, were collected and combined to form two composite samples. In addition to the s o i l samples for nutrient analysis, six random root cores were taken with a Santantonio root corer (Ewel et a l . , 1982) from each mixed garden. These samples provide a means to characterize the below-ground structure of the gardens. The root cores were separated into 0-5 cm and 5-25 cm depth categories before being washed to remove mineral s o i l and l i t t e r . Subsequently, the roots were separated into <1, 1-2, 2-5, 5-10, 10-20 and >20 mm diameter classes prior to drying and weighing. Previously established regression functions (Berish 1982) provided the means of converting dry weights into root surface area measurements. Photosynthetically active radiation (400-700 nm:PAR) was measured in each of the six gardens using LI-COR light sensors and a printing integrator. Measurements were taken at ground level along a randomly-placed 30 meter tape. Two sensors were employed, one permanently placed in f u l l sun while the other was moved in 50 cm increments along the meter tape. A switch box was used to alternately read the two sensors for one minute intervals. A l l light measurements were taken between 11:00 am and 1:00 p.m. under cloudless or near-cloudless conditions. Tree heights were recorded, along with depth of canopy, using a 13 m telescoping calibrated measuring pole. Diameter of canopy was taken as the average of two measurements taken at right angles to each other with a meter tape. Other structural measurements included diameter at breast height (dbh) and leaf area index (LAI). LAI was measured according to the point quadrant method (Wilson 1965). This method involves dropping a line from above the canopy, the relative leaf area being indicated by the number of leaves touching the line. Trees were climbed and a long hand-held pole was used to get the line above the tree canopy. An average of four "drops" of the line, one in each of the crown quadrants, was taken as the leaf area for each sampling point. 40 3.5.2.3 Energy Analysis In addition to the above measures, data from the weekly input-output survey were used to develop indices of relative energy use. These indices reflect the use of imported energy sources (e.g., f e r t i l i z e r s , manure, etc.). Similar analysis of other cropping systems on the farm permitted a comparison of the relative energy performance of the different agroecosystems. 41 CHAPTER 4 CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL FARMING SYSTEMS IN COSTA RICA 4.0 Introduction During the farm survey a variety of data was collected, some of which describe the farming system environment and the mixed garden agroecosystem. The presentation of the data is structured around these two general themes. Due to the large number of variables treated, many of the figures are presented in the appendices. Where appropriate, comparative data for the l i f e zones studied are presented in tables, together with measures of between-life zone difference and/or within-life zone difference. Reference is given in particular tables as to which figures and appendices may be consulted for more details as to the nature of these differences. Certain conventions are used consistently in a l l tables and these are summarized as follows: TDF,T Tropical Dry Forest, Moist Transition TMF Tropical Moist Forest TWF Tropical Wet Forest TPWF,T Tropical Premontane Wet Forest, Warm Transition TPWF Tropical Premontane Wet Forest * s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant at p <.05 ns not s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant at p <.05 x mean s.d. standard deviation 4.1 The Farming System Environment Agroecosystems exist, thrive or f a i l within the context of the farming system environment. This environment consists of a regional or national social and economic matrix, as well as the immediate farming system. Some of the important questions concerning the v i a b i l i t y of a new or remodelled agroecosystem relate to such things as the nature of the family structure, land tenure, dominant enterprises, available farm labour, off-farm employment, and u t i l i z a t i o n of commercial agricultural inputs. Consequently, the following data relate primarily to these 42 concerns. 4.1.1 Family Structure Ten variables, summarized in Table 4-1, were used to characterize family structure on small farms in Costa Rica. Noteworthy i s the relative similarity of the five l i f e zones, with the exception of "years on farm". Also outstanding i s the prevalence of s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant within-life zone differences. Between-life zone differences separate the TWF and TPWF,T l i f e zones from the others, these two areas having a shorter average period of residence on the farm. According to SEPSA (1982), 53.7% of the Costa Rica population lives in the rural areas. A comparison of population st a t i s t i c s (Table 4-2) with the farm sample shows a reasonable correspondence. There i s , however, a bias towards the upper age classes in the study population (the average "farmer age" was 50 years). What is suggested by these figures i s a trend towards fewer young people entering or taking over the management of farms. The relatively short periods of residence, as indicated by "years on farm", particularly in certain l i f e zones, also reinforces this suggestion. Wagner (1958) noted that land tended to change hands frequently on the Nicoya Peninsula with subsistence farms giving way to cash-oriented operations in the hands of larger farms with more capital. More recently, Salas et al (1983) have chronicled this trend for Costa Rica, over the period 1950-1980. Such a trend could very well foresee the mixed garden play a diminished role on small farms as the small-farm population i s reduced and the larger farms become wholly commercially-oriented. Evidence for a trend towards an aging farmer population from the other variables presented in Table 4-1 i s not clear one way or another. Family size i s relatively modest at five or six members. Although i t was evident that some families lived on a subsistence basis, extreme poverty was a rare occurrence. A subjective rating based upon f i e l d observations of the relative well-being of the different survey locations Table 4-1. Family structure on small farms in Costa Rica s t r a t i f i e d by ecological l i f e zone. LIFE ZONES BETWEEN WITHIN LIFE ZONE LIFE ZONE TDF,T TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF DIFFERENCES1 DIFFERENCES1 Age of Farmer (years) x 2 s.d. 51.20 (14.46) 51.57 (14.98) 49.02 (15.54) 52.86 (14.92) 49.67 (13.84) ns * Years on Farm 21.89 (20.25) 24.44 (17.22) 14.46 (12.95) 12.83 (52.18) 22.75 (17.47) * * On-Farm Family Size 3 6.00 (3.20) 05.56 (2.73) 5.87 (3.39) 5.38 (2.44) 6.44 (2.59) ns * # Female Children <14 yrs 0.84 (1.09) 0.77 (1.08) 0.96 (1.26) 1.04 (1-17) 0.84 (0.98) * * # Male Children <14 yrs 1.00 (1.15) 1.00 (1.10) 0.98 (1.03) 1.00 (1.11) 1.16 (1.40) ns t Female Children 14-18 yrs 0.51 (0.84) 0.52 (0.76) 0.40 (0.69) 0.33 (0.56) 0.38 (0.85) ns * f Male Children 14-18 yrs 0.62 (0.94) 0.51 (0.87) 0.47 (0.82) 0.40 (0.65) 0.58 (0.81) ns * # Female Children >18 yrs 0.47 (0.73) 0.34 (0.57) 0.38 (0.83) 0.44 (0.81) 0.64 (0.96) ns * # Male Children >18 yrs 0.58 (0.89) 0.34 (0.86) 0.58 (0.97) 0.49 (1.12) 0.80 (0.94) ns * Off-Farm Family Size 0.36 (0.86) 0.38 (1.25) 0.40 (1.60) 0.51 (1.52) 0.47 (1.29) ns ns xFor further elaboration, refer to Figures A2 - A l l in Appendix 2. 2Based upon a sample size of 45 farms. 3On-farm family refers to those persons living on the farm; Off-farm family refers to family living and working away from the farm but contributing to farm support. 44 Table 4-2. Comparison of population structure as described by the national census data and my study data. Age SEPSA1 STUDY Cateqory n % n % under 14 482,943 40.5 430 32.7 15 - 18 123,264 10.3 212 16.1 19 - 29 240,634 20.2 227 17.3 30 - 39 121,033 10.2 368 5.2 40 - 49 87,631 7.4 122 9.3 50 - 59 63,372 5.3 90 6.8 60+ 2,203 6.1 167 12.7 Total 1,191,081 1,316 A d a p t e d f r o m T a b l e 2 9 , SEPSA ( 1 9 8 2 ) i s given Table 4-3. It can be seen that there i s l i t t l e evidence for diffe r e n t i a l wealth distribution between the different zones. Table 4-3. Subjective rating of the relative economic well-being of the different survey locations. Each location i s rated relative to the other areas within the l i f e zone and also to a l l other locations. L i f e Survey Within-zone Overall Zone Location Rating Rating Canas 1 5 TDF Pitahaya 2 8 Cabo Blanco 3 15 Hojancha 2 7 TMF San Mateo/Orotina 1 2 Pto. Vargas 3 13 Herradura/Jaco 3 14 TWF Pto. Viejo, Sarapiqui 2 10 Guapiles 1 3 Ciudad Cortez 1 4 TPWF,T Rio Frio 2 9 Siguirres 3 11 Rivas 3 12 TPWF Puriscal 2 6 Grecia/Sarchi 1 1 1 " w e l l - b e i n g " w a s a s s e s s e d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e f a r m h o u s e ( i . e . , w h e t h e r w o o d o r b r i c k , o l d o r n e w , a n d d i r t o r o t h e r f l o o r i n g u s e d ) a n d a c c e s s t o e l e c t r i c i t y a n d r u n n i n g w a t e r . 4.1.2. Tenancy Farm ownership i s among the 11 variables summarized in Table 4-4. 45 As for family structure, the variables defining tenancy are notable for their lack of between-life zones variab i l i t y . Both within-life zone and between-life zone differences are restricted to "farm size" and "total area". Farmers add to the land base they manage through rental or other arrangements with neighbouring landowners. This tendency i s shown in Table 4-4, as i s the area of such acquisitions or dispositions, expressed as a percentage of the original farm size. Three l i f e zones — TMF, TPWF,T AND TPWF — have significant within-zone differences when original farm size i s considered. These differences disappear in the TPWF l i f e zone after land acquisition arrangements ("Total Area" in Table 4-4) are taken into account, although the differences remain significant within the other two zones. The small farms surveyed in the study were almost wholly owner-operated. These farms (i.e., 10 ha or less) represent 54% of a l l farms in Costa Rica but comprise only 4% of the total area under cultivation (SEPSA 1982). Farms greater than 200 ha represent only 3.3% of a l l farms but control 54% of total area under cultivation. Clearly our targeted study population reflects the continued existence of the latifundia-minifundia dichotomy established as a result of the Spanish conquest. Farm size, even after land acquisition and dispositions, was on average greatest in the TWF and TPWF,T l i f e zone and smallest in the TPWF zone. However, i t should be noted that the Rio Frio survey location was a resettlement project in which most farms were uniformly 10 ha in size and consequently skew the average to the right (see Figure A12, Appendix 2). Farm size as reflected for TWF reveals the subjectivity of the concept "small farm"; this fact i s reinforced when considering farm size for TPWF. It was found in the f i e l d and in talking to farmers in the Herradura/Jaco and Pto. Viejo de Sarapiqui areas of TWF that 50 ha was considered barely enough land for a farm to manage at or slightly above Table 4-4. Tenancy, farm size, land acquisition and land disposition arrangements for five Costa Rican l i f e zones. (Units are hectares unless otherwise stated). LIFE ZONES BETWEEN WITHIN LIFE ZONE LIFE ZONE TDF,T TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF DIFFERENCES DIFFERENCES Ownership (%) 88.89 97.78 97.78 97.78 97.78 - -Farm Size x 2 s.d. 4.03 (3.34) 4.13 (3.53) 6.43 (4.47) 5.95 (3.56) 2.38 (1.54) * * Rented Out 0 0.11 0 0 0 ns ns Rented Out as a percent of farm 0 1.11 (7.45) 0 0 0 ns ns Other Arrangement3 of land disposition 0.47 (1.58) 0.51 (2.50) 0 0 0 ns ns Other Arrangements as percent of farm 0.06 (0.19) 4.55 (21.07) 0 0 0 ns ns Rented by Farmer 0.05 (0.32) 0.11 (0.75) 0 0.25 (1.33) 0 ns ns Rented as a percent of farm 0.02 (0.15) 2.22 (10.42) 0 3.33 (16.51) 0 ns ns Other Arrangement of land acquisition 0.29 (0.92) 0.17 (0.60) 0.53 (1.53) 0.17 (0.56) 0.24 (0.74) ns ns Other Arrangement as percent of farm 0.18 (0.39) 4.44 (20.84) 17.78 (38.67) 8.89 (28.78) 17.78 (38.67) ns ns Total Area 3.90 (2.77) 4.29 (3.43) 6.96 (4.19) 6.37 (4.11) 2.62 (1.64) * * xFor further details see Tables A12 - A13 in Appendix 2. 2Based upon a sample size of 45 farms. 3Other arrangements include sharecropping, cooperative ventures and family agreements. 47 subsistence level. In these areas, primarily due to soils (Inceptisols subject to low f e r t i l i t y and heavy r a i n f a l l in the latter case and a Mollisol subject to poor drainage for the former (OPSA 1979)) extensive cattle grazing tended to predominate. As each head of cattle requires a hectare or more for grazing, farms of 10 ha or less were rare and in fact only 12 were found in the Herradura/Jaco area. Coffee production on volcanic soils in Grecia/Sarchi presented the other extreme in that farmers have been able, with intensive production methods, to make a very good income from farms of two to three hectares. Consequently, a "big" farm could well be one of five hectares. This situation i s t e s t i f i e d to by the fact that much of the coffee production i s in the hands of the small producers (Salas et a l . 1982). Differences both within- and between-life zones with respect to farm size can be largely explained by the a b i l i t y or i n a b i l i t y to effectively grow crops. Where limitations exist that cannot be dealt with by capital-deficient small farmers, then invariably cattle seem to be the last resort, though not a poorly rewarded one over the short-term. Ownership and farm size are undoubtedly the variables of importance in terms of the mixed garden. Perennial cropping systems, lik e mixed gardens, require ownership (because of the long-term commitment before substantial gains are realized). Though there i s no apparent relationship between absolute farm size and the presence or absence of gardens or the size of gardens, the size of the holding undoubtedly affects a farmer's perception of his situation as a viable economic unit. Twenty farms out of 175 were comprised solely of the mixed garden with a l l being one hectare or less in size (mean =0.7 ha). Thus, farm size appears to be implicated in some cases. Success in instituting any changes in the management of the mixed garden designed to improve a farmer's situation w i l l heed farmer cooperation, which w i l l be more forthcoming from farmers with a serious vested interest in their gardens; consequently these two variables are important. The recent discussion of agricultural development 48 by Hayarai and Ruttan (1985) supports this contention. 4.1.3. Land Use Land use oh small farms in the different zones i s characterized in Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7. Table 4-5 summarizes the mean hectareage for seven different crop types or land uses. The different land uses are expressed as percentages of the farm area in Table 4-6, while Table 4-7 characterizes the farms surveyed according to the number of different land uses practised. Between-life zone differences were found for the variables "perennial", "annual" and "pasture". In the case of perennial crops the differences (p<.05) separated TPWF from the TDF, TWF and TPWF,T l i f e zones. As well, the TPWF,T area was significantly different from the TDF and TWF areas. When perennial crops are considered as a percentage of total farm area the TDF and TWF l i f e zones are aligned and are significantly different from the other three areas. Significant differences in the amount of land dedicated to annual crops exist between both the TDF and TWF l i f e zones and the TMF, TPWF,T and TPWF zones. These differences disappear when annual crops are considered as a percentage of total farm area. In the case of pasture, differences were found between the TWF and the other four l i f e zones. These differences hold for both annual crop hectareage and annual crops as a percent of total land area. Differences between-life zones for "woodlot", "fallow", "rented out" and "mixed garden" were not significant. The percentage of total farm land dedicated to particular agroeco-systems i s a more appropriate basis for assessing differences between-life zones than the absolute area as i t represents, in an integral manner, a farmer's evaluation of his environmental situation. From this perspective, only two agroecosystems, perennial and pasture, register significant differences. For the case of perennial, both TDF and TWF zones have, on average, only about 16% of available land in perennial crops Table 4-5. Land use. Mean hectareage (with standard deviations) dedicated to different agroecosystems on small farms in five different l i f e zones i n Costa Rica. LIFE ZONE BETWEEN WITHIN LIFE ZONE LIFE ZONE TDF TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF DIFFERENCES1 DIFFERENCES1 Farm Size x 4.03 4. 13 6.43 5. 95 2. 36 * * s.d. (3.20) (3. 44) (4.46) (3. 44) (1. 54) Perennial 0.75 2. 07 0.81 3. 16 1. 28 * * (1.44) (2. 52) (1.63) (2. 82) (1. 13) Annual 1.21 0. 55 0.91 0. 54 0. 46 * * (1.31) (0. 99) (1.23) (0. 93) (0. 64) Pasture 1.15 0. 65 3.67 1. 54 0. 46 * * (2.26) (1. 69) (4.05) (2. 76) (0. 72) Woodlot 0.24 0. 12 0.44 0. 19 0. 01 ns ns (0.69) (0. 43) (1.36) (1. 02) (0. 05) Fallow 0.15 0. 24 0.37 0. 11 0. 03 ns ns (0.59) (0. 78) (1.46) (0. 64) (0. 12) Rented Out 0.54 0. 16 _ 0. 02 ns ns (1.88) (1. 06) (0. 15) Mixed Garden 0.30 0. 26 0.27 0. 26 0. 10 ns * (0.30) (0. 36) (0.34) (0. 37) (0. 19) See Figures A14 - A21 in Appendix 2 for more detail. Table 4-6. Land use. Mean percent of farm land (with standard deviations) dedicated to different agroecosystems on small farms in five different l i f e zones in Costa Rica. (Note: values are averages for farms having the particular agroecosystems and therefore do not correspond directly with data in Table 4-5.) LIFE ZONES BETWEEN WITHIN LIFE ZONE LIFE ZONE TDF TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF DIFFERENCES1 DIFFERENCES Perennial x 16. 39 48. 66 15, .99 58. 10 54, .82 * * s.d. (28. 41) (44. 54) (28, .52) (38. 27) (33, .51) Annual 23. 05 12. 66 17. .01 6. 63 17. .39 - ns * (30. 36) (23. 96) (23, .81) (12. 00) (24, .76) Pasture 25. 12 9. 38 45. .00 19. 37 15. .41 * * (35. 19) (20. 34) (36. .75) (30. 61) (21. .82) Woodlot 2. 93 4. 08 3. .10 1. 33 0. .93 ns ns (11. 20) (10. 87) (11. .96) (6. 79) (3. ,69) Fallow 3. 01 2. 84 4. .84 2. 59 0. .37 ns ns (9. 08) (10. 97) (12. .27) (12. 98) (2. .51) Rented Out 7. 12 2. 02 0. 22 ns ns (21. 69) (13. 55) (1. 49) Mixed Garden 19. 33 18. 65 13. ,21 9. 30 10. .56 ns * (30. 78) (34. 36) (28. ,52) (20. 84) (25. ,20) •"•See Figures A14 - A24 in Appendix 2 for more detail. o Table 4-7. Characterization of farms surveyed according to the number of agroecosystems managed. Data are given separately for each of the three locations within each l i f e zone. 45 farms were surveyed i n each zone. L i f e Survey Zone Locat. Number of agroecosystems 1 2 3 4 5 Number of farms having the given number of agroecosystems TDF 1 2 3 2 2 4 5 2 2 5 7 2 1 1 7 4 1 TMF 1 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 11 2 2 10 4 1 TWF 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 5 5 1 1 7 6 4 TPWF,T 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 6 7 1 8 5 5 TPWF 1 2 3 1 5 5 3 1 3 5 4 3 4 4 6 1 TOTAL 40 70 65 40 10 % 17.8 31.1 28.9 17.8 4.4 52 (sugarcane, rice and maize and beans, are the dominant crops in these two areas) compared with between 48% and about 60% for the other l i f e zones. In addition, when we consider pasture, the TWF zone with an average percent area of 45% stands out from the other four zones, which dedicate only 25% or less to this agroecosystem. Within-life zone differences for Table 4-6 (percentage areas) exist for "perennial", "annual", "pasture" and "mixed garden" agroecosystems. These differences appear to be due more to community characteristics than anything else. For the perennial agroecosystem within-life zone differences (p<.05) exist for the TMF and TPWF,T l i f e zones. In the TMF situation the farms situated around Hojancha stand out from those around San Mateo/Orotina and Pto. Vargas. The latter two communities are dominated by perennial crops — mixed f r u i t trees and cacao (with shade trees), respectively. The farms surveyed around Hojancha were for the most part subsistence-oriented and gave priority to planting maize and beans. Farms in the other two communities were much more commercial operations. The situation for the TPWF,T zone is somewhat different. Although rice production i s important in the Ciudad Cortez area, many of the small farmers remain dedicated to cacao production; a similar situation holds for the Siquirres area. However, the third survey location in this particular l i f e zone, Rio Frio, was a resettlement project where the administrators of the project were encouraging animal and annual crop production. Consequently, Rio Frio farms have on average significantly greater areas in pasture and annual crops than Ciudad Cortez and Siquirres. The same emphasis on animal production sets Rio Frio apart and the TPWF,T zone from the other areas for within-life zone differences in terms of percentage of total land in pasture. No significant differences exist either for absolute land areas or for percentage of total land area between the five l i f e zones with respect to "mixed garden". Within-life zone differences are only significant in the case of TDF and set the farms of the Cabo Blanco area apart from those 53 near Canas and Pitahaya as having a larger percentage of land for mixed gardens. More detail on the frequency with which gardens of particular sizes occur in the different l i f e zones i s given in Figure 4-1. Distributions vary considerably between l i f e zones and tend to be skewed towards the smaller sizes. Garden size ranges from 30m2 to 2.0 ha overall, though the TPWF zone, with the fewest gardens, has the most restricted range (100m2 to 0.7 ha). Standard deviations are given as a measure of the variation that exists in the data. As i s evident in Tables 4-5 and 4-6, as well as in the previous tables, the standard deviations are usually quite large. This indicates a high degree of inherent variation in the data, which i s characteristic of most of the variables presented or to be presented. The number of on-farm enterprises varies from farm to farm and i s summarized in Table 4-7. There are no significant s t a t i s t i c a l differences, either between or within-life zones. Overall, 17.8%, 31.1%, 28.9%, 17.8%, and 4.4% of the farms surveyed operated one, two, three, four, and five enterprises, respectively. It i s no surprise that farms in different l i f e zones vary substantially in their mix of agroecosystems. The amount of within-life zone variation however, shows that ecological differences are not necessarily the main source of variation. Farmers themselves introduce, through their own preferences for certain crops or animals, differences which can be much greater within a particular l i f e zone than between disti n c t l y different l i f e zones. More than 80% of the farms surveyed managed two or more agroecosystems not including the mixed garden. This multi-faceted nature of small farms reinforces the need for a systems approach to their study. These farms are complex systems with overlapping agricultural calendars and complex temporal patterns of sometimes precise and timely labour requirements and the need for farmers to understand the agronomics of Figure 4-1. Nixed garden s i z e (ha) as a function of frequency of occurrence, s t r a t i f i e d according to l i f e zone. Numbers in brackets indicate sample s i z e . • TDF (41) 0.29 0.49 0.59 0.79 Size (ha) 55 multiple cropping. As the quotation by Edgar Anderson at the beginning of Chapter 2 suggests, the f i r s t reaction of temperate-trained agriculturalists i s to simplify. Simplification has, however, shown i t s e l f to be inappropriate for the tropics time and again (Myers 1984; Eckholm 1976). The farmers interviewed, for the most part, understood the complexity of their situation, at least at an intuitive level. For the most part they are successful in their approaches to dealing with i t . The mixed garden is clearly an important component of small farming systems in Costa Rica. Though half of the gardens found are only between 0.01 to 0.20 hectares in size, half are greater, and a few encompass a hectare or more of land. As a percent of total farm size, mixed gardens are most important in the TDF and TMF l i f e zones. The importance of gardens in these two areas probably is closely linked to two factors, the f i r s t of which is climate. Both these l i f e zones experience seasonal dry periods of six or more months. In fact, during the period of the farm survey these areas had gone without significant r a i n f a l l for over a year. Mixed gardens, with their predominantly large tree architecture (mangos, timber species and palms), act to modify microclimatic conditions around the homestead and so improve the quality of l i f e for the farm family. This i s quite arguablely one of their most important functions in these l i f e zones as l i f e under the hot, dry and dusty sun without some escape is highly disagreeable. The second factor i s the economic depression affecting small capital-poor farms in these areas. This factor i s indicated by the relative number of farmers and other family members seeking off-farm work (see Table 4-9). Mixed gardens become increasingly important i f this off-farm income becomes limited or i f an extended drought ruins f i e l d crops. Fruits, herbs and other consumables derived from the mixed garden provide a partial i f not a substantial supplement to the farm household in these circumstances. 4.1.4 Farm Labour Manpower remains the principal labour input into the small farming Table 4-8. Family and hired labour contributions to farm activities on an annual basis according to l i f e zone. Units are the number of months per year dedicated to on-farm labour. BETWEEN WITHIN TDF TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF LIFE ZONE DIFFERENCES LIFE ZONE DIFFERENCES Farmer x s.d. 7.07 (4.70) 10.21 (3.23) 9.70 (3.83) 10.12 (2.89) 9.78 (3.95) * ns Wife 0.71 (2.30) 0.60 (2.51) 0.89 (3.06) 2.18 (4.26) 9.78 (1.25) ns ns Males > 14yrs 8.18 (35.19) 5.64 (20.34) 6.39 (36.75) 7.03 (30.61) 7.89 (21.82) ns * Females > 14yrs 0.09 (0.60) 0.27 (1.79) 0.02 (0.13) 0.73 (3.21) 1.24 (2.81) ns ns Children < 14yrs 0.16 (0.90) 0.07 (0.45) - 0.27 (1.25) 0.53 (1.91) ns ns Hired Help 0.47 (1.89) 0.98 (1.57) 1.40 (3.09) 1.17 (2.78) 3.21 (4.46) ns ns Table 4 - 9 . Off-farm employment by small farmers and family members by l i f e zone1. Indicated in the table are the number (n) of individuals who participate in off-farm employment and the percentage (%) they represent of the whole sample. TDF TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF n 2 % n % n % n % n % Non-Participants 23 51.11 30 66.67 31 68.89 30 66.67 33 73.33 Participant FarmerB 22 48.89 15 33.33 14 31.11 15 33.33 12 26.67 Wife 1 0.02 2 0.04 3 0.07 1 0.02 1 0.02 Brother - - 1 0.02 1 0.02 - - - -In-Laws - - 1 0.02 - - 2 0.04 - -Males < 10 yrs - - - - - - - - - -Females < 10 yrs - - - - - - - - - -Males 10-15 yrs 1 0.02 - - 1 0.02 - - - . -Females 10-15 yrs 1 0.02 - - - - - - - -Males > 15 yrs 18 40.00 10 22.22 14 31.11 12 26.67 14 31.11 Females > 15 yrs - . — 4 0.09 2 0.04 1 0.02 5 11.11 1See Table Al in Appendix 3 for a breakdown of the types of off-farm employment sought by farmers and family members. 2Farm sample size i s 45 farms per l i f e zone. 58 system. Both hired and family labour inputs are summarized by l i f e zone in Table 4-8. Labour input i s given as the average number of months of full-time farming effort, based upon an 8-hour working day. Between-life zone differences are restricted to the variable "farmer", which indicates a significant variation in the average number of months dedicated to their farms annually by the farmers in different l i f e zones. In this case, the TDF l i f e zone stands out from the other four with i t s s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant (p<0.05) lower value for time spent on farm. This fact i s primarily a reflection of an area that was economically depressed (for small farmers) and undergoing a severe drought at the time of the survey. It should be noted, however, that farmers from a l l l i f e zones tend, on average, to spend less than 12 months working solely on their own farms. Within-life zone differences exist only for the variable "Males >14 years" and this difference i s restricted to the TPWF l i f e zone. This situation again seems to reflect the problem of economic depression, in this case of a coffee-producing area (Rivas), where the older male children are forced to look for off-farm employment. Inspite of this situation, male children 14 years of age and older are the second most important source of labour after the farmer. The contribution of this age group is sometimes greater than that of the farmer due to two reasons. F i r s t , there i s often more than one child of this age in the family and, secondly, in some situation such as the TDF l i f e zone where an extreme drought condition forced farmers to look for off-farm employment. Hired help i s generally avoided except in the coffee growing areas of the TPWF zone. 4.1.5 Off-Farm Employment As indicated by Table 4-9, many farmers and family members spend time doing non-farm a c t i v i t i e s . Much of the non-farm activity involves employment off-farm (see Table Al, Appendix 3). Participation in off-farm employment by farmers themselves varies from 49% of the farmers interviewed in the TDF l i f e zone to 27% in the 59 TPWF zone. Involvement in off-farm employment by other family members i s infrequent but i s highest in males over 15 years of age. In this latter group, off-farm employment was greatest (40%) for the TDF l i f e zone, lowest (22%) for TMF and more or less equivalent for TWF, TPWF,T and TPWF l i f e zones. The seeking of off-farm employment by farmers in Costa Rica i s not unusual and has been documented for other regions as well (Sumner 1982, for the U.S.A.; Hayami and Ruttan 1985, for Asia). In economic terms, when the marginal value of time in an off-farm job i s higher than the marginal value of time of on-farm activities the tendency w i l l be to allocate time to off-farm work. Farm size and climatic conditions (particularly for TDF and TMF l i f e zones) which result in an excess of farm labour appear to be major factors that explain much of the off-farm employment. Other factors that have been found to influence off-farm work by male farmers include off-farm work experience, off-farm wage rate, travel distance, age, type of farming, tenure status of farmer and seasonality (Sander 1983). 4.1.6. Off-Farm Agricultural Inputs Many small farmers in Costa Rica are involved to some extent in the production of export crops such as coffee and sugar, which involve use of off-farm inputs (i.e., mostly petroleum-based products). Taken as a group, small farmers tend not to use off-farm inputs, although there i s considerable variation between-life zones and in some areas there was heavy use of some of these types of inputs (Table 4-10). F e r t i l i z e r , for example, was used by 93% of farmers surveyed in the TPWF l i f e zone, while only 24% of farmers in the TWF l i f e zone were using f e r t i l i z e r at the time of the study. Similarly, the range for "improved seed" was 27% (TMF and TPWF,T) to 56% (TWF and TPWF); for "herbicide" i t was 20% (TMF) to 60% (TPWF); for "insecticide", 13% (TMF) to 40% (TDF); for "fungicide", 7% (TWF) to 29% (TPWF); and for "irrigation", 0% (TDF and TWF) to 16% (TPWF). A l l farmers surveyed recognized the value of f e r t i l i z e r and other inputs to crop production. For example, the farmers of the Rivas area of Table 4-10. Summary of current and past usage of off-farm agricultural inputs, by small farmers in different Costa Rican l i f e zones. Comparisons are based upon 45 farms per l i f e zone, with "n" equaling the number of farms in a category and "%", the percentage represented by "n" for that l i f e zone. TDF n % TMF n % TWF n % TPWF,T n % TPWF n % AVG. % F e r t i l i z e r : Current — yes 20 44. 4 20 44. 4 11 24. 4 18 40. 0 42 93. 3 49. 3 - no 25 55. 6 25 55. 6 34 75. 6 27 60. 0 3 6. 7 50. 7 Past _ yes 20 44. 4 20 44. 4 10 22. 2 19 42. 2 45 100 50. 7 — no 25 55. 6 25 55. 6 35 77. 8 26 57. 8 - - 49. 3 Crop _ Annuals 18 90. 0 18 90. 0 5 50. 0 1 5. 3 5 11. 1 41. 2 - Perennials 2 10. 0 2 10. 0 5 50. 0 18 94. 7 40 88. 9 58. 8 Improved Seed: — yes 16 35. 6 12 26. 7 25 55. 6 12 26. 7 25 55. 6 40. 0 — no 29 64. 4 33 73. 3 20 44. 4 33 73. 3 20 44. 4 60. 0 Crop — Annuals 16 100 8 66. 7 13 52. 0 2 16. 7 2 8. 0 43. 3 - Perennials - - 4 33. 3 12 48. 0 10 83. 3 23 92. 0 56. 7 Herbicide: _ yes 23 51. 1 9 20. 0 24 53. 3 19 42. 2 27 60. 0 45. 3 - no 22 48. 9 36 80. 0 21 46. 7 26 57. 8 18 40. 0 54. 7 Insecticide: _ Plant 18 40. 0 6 13. 3 8 17. 3 10 22. 2 17 37. 8 26. 2 - Animal 5 11. 1 1 2. 3 11 24. 9 2 4. 5 4 8. 9 10. 2 - Not Used 22 48. 9 38 84. 4 26 57. 8 33 73. 3 24 53. 3 63. 6 Fungicide: _ yes 7 15. 6 4 8. 9 3 6. 7 6 13. 3 13 28. 9 14. 7 — no 38 84. 4 41 91. 1 42 93. 3 39 86. 7 32 71. 1 85. 3 Irrigation: _ yes _ _ 1 2. 2 _ _ 1 2. 2 7 15. 6 4. 0 - no 45 100 44 97. 8 45 100 44 97. 8 38 84. 4 96. 0 61 the TPWF l i f e zone chart the decline of their coffee production to the withdrawal of a government f e r t i l i z e r subsidy. The withdrawal of the subsidy at a time of low coffee prices initiated a downward spiral in coffee yields and the farmers' a b i l i t y to buy f e r t i l i z e r to boost yields. Even in areas better suited to coffee production, f e r t i l i z e r use i s determined by what farmers anticipate receiving for the coffee they produce. Cultivation of certain crops for market is capital intensive. Rice, potatoes, vegetables, melons, chayote a l l must be produced according to prescribed agronomic practices, which include f e r t i l i z e r s , pre- and post-emergent pesticides, and fungicides. Consequently, a farmer wishing to cultivate one of these crops must be able to acquire capital through loans from the bank, from cooperatives or from the commercial mills (i.e., in the case of ri c e ) . These crops, though they can produce substantial profits, are looked upon as high risk ventures by the farmers interviewed. Few of these farmers used any off-farm input outside of f e r t i l i z e r and this input was used by fewer than 50% of the farmers in the study. The limitations faced by farmers in their use of off-farm inputs on their f i e l d crops prevent their use in the mixed garden. However, the mixed garden has a certain advantage in that household wastes are most often disposed off within the garden and thus constitute a source of nutrient and organic matter input. 4.2 Summary and Conclusions Some general conclusions are evident from the data presented and can be summarized as follows: 1. There i s a notable similarity in the on-farm and off-farm labour amongst the farms in the five l i f e zones; 2. Ownership and farm size are the important variables in determining the presence and character of the mixed garden; 3. Overall, 17.8%, 31.1%, 28.9%, 17.8%, and 4.4% of the farms surveyed operated one, two, three, four, and five enterprises, 62 respectively. 4. The mixed garden i s clearly an important component of small farming systems in Costa Rica. Though half of the gardens found are only between 0.01 to 0.20 hectares in size, half are greater, and a few encompass a hectare or more of land. As a percent of total farm size, mixed gardens are most important in the TDF and TMF l i f e zones. 5. Taken as a group, small farmers tend not to use off-farm inputs, although there i s considerable variation between l i f e zones and in some areas there was heavy use of some of these types of inputs. 63 CHAPTER 5 THE MIXED GARDEN AGROECOSYSTEM 5.0 Mixed Garden Functions Agroecosystems are multi-dimensional and an adequate description of them must address a variety of questions about their role in the overall economy of the small farm. The data presented Tables 5-1 and 5-2 were obtained from a survey of households in two communities, one in the TDF l i f e zone (Pitahaya) and another in the TPWF,T zone (San Juan Sur). Farmers were asked to rank the relative importance of five commonly observed attributes of mixed gardens: plant production, animals in the mixed garden, importance of shade, the generation of additional income, and the use of the garden as a u t i l i t y area. Table 5-1. A comparison of the percentage of farmers, from each of the TDF and TPWF,T l i f e zones, ranking, i n order of importance, of five observed ac t i v i t i e s within the mixed garden. The number i n brackets represents the number of households surveyed i n each community. Life Percentage of Respondents U t i l i t y Zone Rank Food Shade Animals Income Area 1 78.95 5.26 12.28 3.51 0 2 12.30 19.30 50.88 14.04 3.51 TDF 3 7.02 38.60 26.32 28.07 0 (57) 4 1.80 21.05 8.77 43.86 24.56 5 0 15.80 1.80 10.53 71.93 1 78.00 0 6.00 2.00 12.00 2 20.00 2.00 40.00 6.00 32.00 TPWF,T 3 0 12.00 30.00 32.00 28.00 (50) 4 ' 2.00 22.00 18.00 38.00 20.00 5 0 64.00 8.00 22.00 8.00 Food production i s the primary function of the mixed garden. The importance of shade, as alluded to previously, i s greater in the TDF zone where a seasonal dry period of five to six months (or more) i s 64 Table 5-2. A comparison between the TDF and TPWF,T l i f e zones of the relative importance of five different mixed garden functions. Garden Li f e Zone Activity TDF TPWF,T Food 1 1 Shade 3 5 Animals 2 3 Income 4 4 U t i l i t y Area 5 2 experienced. In addition, the TDF l i f e zone i s distinguished by giving a higher degree of importance to the raising of animals within the mixed garden. U t i l i t y area (e.g., for storage and processing of crops) as a function of the garden was the lowest priority for the farmers in the TDF zone in contrast to i t s being the second most important activity for mixed gardens in the TPWF,T l i f e zone. The importance of income generation was the same in both areas and ranked fourth in relation to the other a c t i v i t i e s . The varying importance given to different mixed garden functions has both an ecological, as well as a sociological base. Shade i s a good example of an ecologically motivated function for the hot and dry TDF l i f e zone, while i t s lack of relevance to the TPWF,T zone i s signified by i t low ranking. Sociologically the two communities are quite different. San Juan Sur is dominated by small, independent farmers, while Pitahaya i s primarily a community dependent upon paid labour from surrounding sugarcane plantation estates. The low ranking given by Pitahayans to the use of the garden as a u t i l i t y area compared to the high ranking (number 2 in importance) in San Juan Sur is explained in large part by this difference. Farmers, such as those in San Juan Sur, need space to store or process things in relation to their farm ac t i v i t i e s and so this function of the mixed garden is an important one for them. In this research into the nature of the mixed garden in Costa Rica, the primary concerns were ecological in character and included: 65 - mixed garden frequency and diversity; - st r a t i f i c a t i o n of plant forms; - relative ecological complexity; - animals in the mixed garden; - mixed garden labour inputs; and - ranking the importance of different functions. The following series of tables summarize the data collected and address the hypothesis that "mixed garden complexity and diversity parallels that of the ecological l i f e zone in which i t i s situated." 5.1 Mixed Garden Frequency and Diversity Five variables are summarized in Table 5-3. The f i r s t of these i s a measure of the frequency of occurrence of the mixed garden on small farms in the different l i f e zones. In general, mixed gardens are most common in the TDF region and decrease along a gradient extending to the TPWF, where they are least common. The TPWF,T region does not follow this trend. It shows a high frequency of occurrence (80%). Garden age (i.e., number of years since i n i t i a l planting) as estimated by the farmer follows a similar trend, with older gardens in the TDF l i f e zone and younger gardens in the TPWF,T and TPWF areas. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference between the average age of the TDF gardens and those in the TWF, TPWF,T and TPWF l i f e zones. Standard deviations are high in every case and significant within-life zone differences also exist in every l i f e zone (see Tables A25 - A27, Appendix 2).. Mixed garden diversity i s represented simply by the average number of crop species present. Diversity i s similar for a l l l i f e zones surveyed with the exception of the TDF and TPWF areas between which there are s t a t i s t i c a l differences. Mixed garden species diversity i s further elaborated in Figure 5-1, which shows frequency distributions for gardens of varying species richness in the five l i f e zones surveyed. Within-life zone differences are found in the TPWF,T and TPWF zones. In the latter case these differences are between the Puriscal and Grecia/Sarchi survey locations while the former reflect differences between the Rio Frio and Table 5-3. Frequency and d i v e r s i t y mixed gardens and dispersed gardens on small farms i n f i v e Costa Rican l i f e zones. LIFE ZONES BETWEEN WITHIN LIFE ZONE LIFE ZONE TDF TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF DIFFERENCES1 DIFFERENCES1 Farms with Mixed Gardens (ft) 91.1 80.0 73.3 80.0 64.4 * Age 2 of Mixed Garden (yrs) x l 6 . 3 14.0 8.7 7.3 8.7 * * s.d.(16.6) (16.2) (9.3) (8.9) (9.6) Mean Number of Species x 18.8 19.3 19.3 19.3 12.9 * * i n the Mixed Garden s.d. (7.3) (10.5) (8.0) (8.7) (6.7) Farms with Dispersed (%) 84.6 86.5 93.6 91.8 93.7 ns ns Gardens Mean Number of Species x 10.1 12.5 15.0 14.4 12.9 i n the Dispersed Garden s.d. (9.3) (13.0) (9.4) (9.5) (8.7) 1See Figures A25 - A27 i n Appendix 2 for more d e t a i l . 2Age refe r s to time from i n i t i a l planting as best re c o l l e c t e d by farmer. ns Figure 5-1. Garden d i v e r s i t y (no. of species/garden) as a function of frequency of occurrence, s t r a t i f i e d according to l i f e zone. Numbers in brackets indicate sample s i z e . 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 No. of Species 68 Siquirres locations. The fourth variable reflects the frequency of occurrence of something 1 have called the "dispersed garden". A dispersed garden i s comprised of those resources on the farm, outside the mixed garden but possibly mixed among other crops, that provide incidental benefits for the farm household. For example, f r u i t or firewood from trees used as shade over coffee or cacao, or f r u i t or vegetables from plants growing amongst other crops from seed dispersed accidentally, medicines from native plants in regrowth or natural forest, etc. This variable reflects how farmers capitalize on opportunities which are not expressly planned and are not limited to a particular geographic location on the farm. As indicated in Table 5-1, this so-called dispersed garden i s almost universal among small farmers in a l l l i f e zones surveyed. Though there i s a slightly lower frequency of occurrence in the TDF and TMF l i f e zones, no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences exist, either between or within l i f e zones. The average number of species u t i l i z e d in the dispersed garden i s smaller than in the mixed garden and significant s t a t i s t i c a l differences between-life zones are absent. Within-life zone differences distinguish the Herradura/Jaco and Sarapiqui survey location in the TWF l i f e zone. Similar differences also separate the Rivas and Puriscal locations in the TPWF zone from the Grecia/Sarchi area of that zone. Mixed gardens are more common in economically depressed areas and less so in areas where farmers are well off. The differences between the TDF and TPWF l i f e zones, with frequencies of occurrence of mixed gardens of 91% and 64% respectively, are an example of this tendency. Within-life zones, we can see this tendency in comparing the Rivas and Grecia/Sarchi survey locations within the TPWF l i f e zone where 67% and 47%, respectively, of farms had mixed gardens. This phenomenon has also been reported for other regions as well, such as Indonesia (Stoler 1978) and Puerto Rico (Kimber 1973). 69 The average age of mixed gardens is quite low, particularly in the coffee-growing areas. To some extent this variable and i t s estimation may have been confounded by the tendency for farms to change ownership over relatively short periods of time (Wagner 1958; Salas 1983). This i s to say that farmers, in some cases, may have given the age of the garden since the time that they themselves began managing i t rather than from the time i t was f i r s t planted. Regardless, definite differences exist between and within l i f e zones. In some cases, such as the Pitahaya (TDF), Pto. Viejo (TWF), and Rio Frio (TPWF,T) areas, mixed gardens are young because the farms themselves have only recently been established as part of resettlement projects (e.g., Pto. Viejo and Rio Frio) or relocation for environmental reasons (e.g., flooding; Pitahaya). In other situations, other agroecosystems have been converted into mixed gardens, examples of which are found in Ciudad Cortez of the TPWF,T l i f e zone and Rivas and Puriscal both of the TPWF zone. In the former case, some farmers have enriched part of their cacao plantations to create a mixed garden, while in the latter two areas a similar process has occurred with coffee plantations. Since this conversion process has primarily been a response to d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced within the past 20 years or so in cacao and coffee production in these areas, the mixed gardens are not very old. Diversity, as measured by the average number of crop plant species per mixed garden, i s quite low in comparison to some of the figures quoted for other areas (eg. 33 - 55 species/garden for southern Mexico; Allison 1983). However, similar diversity has been noted for Indonesian mixed gardens (Karyono 1985) and for the Caribbean Islands (Brierley 1985). A total of 236 different species, not counting varieties and purely ornamental species, were encountered. For the individual l i f e zones, the total number of species found was 117, 133, 128, 118 and 118 respectively, for the TDF, TMF, TWF, TPWF,T and TPWF l i f e zones. Similar figures are given in the above cited Indonesian and Mexican references. S t a t i s t i c a l differences are only significant between the TDF and TPWF 70 l i f e zones. These differences would disappear i f the Grecia/Sarchi farms of the TPWF zone were excluded from consideration because of their effect in skewing the average number of species drastically to the l e f t . This area had by far the fewest home gardens and those that did exist were very species poor. As has been indicated previously, this area is one of very intensive coffee production where emphasis by farmers i s almost purely commercial. Consequently, there i s l i t t l e interest in developing mixed gardens. Within-life zone differences (p<.05) for the TPWF zone are due to the just elaborated reason; differences in the TPWF,T zone exist between the Rio Frio and Siquirres locations. The reasons for the difference between these two survey locations are complex and involve farm size (Rio Frio average farm size i s greater), culture (black Caribbean culture dominates in the Siquirres area, while white Spanish/European culture predominates in the Rio Frio area), and principal agroecosystems (cattle in Rio Frio vs. cacao in Siquirres). Cacao plantations are really mixed forest environments because of the need for shade crops over the cacao plants, consequently many farmers keep the area around the house open and relatively free of trees. The reverse of this situation i s found in the cattle areas, where the mixed garden often rises around the home like a small woodlot. Though not central to the issue of mixed gardens, the data for "dispersed" gardens show that farmers are almost universally opportunistic in their u t i l i z a t i o n of resources. These resources need not be the result of formal and pre-determined actions but may arise from haphazard events or be due to Nature. This characteristic, which i s probably innate in a l l of us, l i k e l y had a primary role in the evolution of. mixed gardens and likewise, the domestication of our various crop species. 5.2 Stratification of Plant Forms Vegetation in the mixed gardens that were surveyed was cla s s i f i e d as belonging to one of four height classes based upon measurements in the f i e l d and in the literature. Mixed gardens in Costa Rica rarely have less 71 than two strata and most commonly three layers are distinguishable (Table 5-4). A l l individuals of species which can potentially grow up into Stratum 4 (i.e., >15 m) were recorded in Stratum 4, irrespective of their present height (e.g., mango, avocado, Tabebuia rosea, Cedrela mexicana and coconut). The f i r s t two variables presented in Table 5-4 have been previously described and are given again as context for the remaining six variables. "Number of Trees" represents a minimum estimate since a separate count of the number of individuals of a given species was not carried out in every garden. However, even on this basis significant s t a t i s t i c a l differences are evident between the TDF and TPWF zones; the latter l i f e zone had a relatively small average number of trees per garden. Within-life zone differences are evident for TMF, with the Pto. Vargas survey area having fewer trees, particularly in comparison to the Hojancha location. The greater average number of trees in mixed gardens of the TDF and TMF reflects the strong effect that climate exerts on the composition of gardens in these two l i f e zones. The standard deviations for both these areas are quite large and, at least for the TMF zone, reflect the effect of different agroecosystem emphasis between survey locations within the l i f e zone. As indicated previously, the Pto. Vargas location i s a cacao producing area. Cacao plantations are forest environments and consequently farmers, being surrounded by forest, prefer to live in "clearings" — that is to say they avoid planting many (i f any) trees around their homes. The other locations in this l i f e zone are in areas that are dominated by cattle interests and so have been deforested. The "number of strata" varies l i t t l e between-life zones and within-l i f e zones. The number of species in Stratum l 1 (0.0-0.5 m) also varies l i t t l e between-life zones, though some within-zone differences exist for TPWF, with the Grecia/Sarchi area having on average a considerable number 1 L i s t s o f p l a n t s p e c i e s f o u n d i n t h e d i f f e r e n t s t r a t a a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e s A3 - A6 i n A p p e n d i x 4 . Table 5-4. Mixed garden stratification i n different Costa Rican l i f e zones. Figures i n brackets represent the number of farms with mixed gardens. LIFE ZONES BETWEEN WITHIN LIFE ZONE LIFE ZONE TDF TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF DIFFERENCES DIFFERENCES (41) (36) (33) (36) (31) Mixed Garden Size (ha) x 0.35 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.18 * * s.d. (0.30) (0.38) (0.32) (0.38) (0.25) Number of Species 18.8 19.3 19.3 19.3 12.9 * (7.3) (10.5) (8.0) (8.7) (6.7) Number of Trees 36.9 28.9 21.3 23.2 13.8 * * (45.5) (26.6) (16.7) (16.2) (10.2) Number of Strata 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.5 ns ns (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.9) Species i n Strata l : 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.3 ns * 0.0 - 0.5 m (1.8) (2.3) (2.5) (2.0) (2.6) Species in Strata 2: 3.9 4.2 5.2 4.6 3.8 * ns 0.5 - 5.0 m (2.4) (3.2) (3.3) (3.0) (2.6) Species in Strata 3: 10.1 10.0 8.9 9.3 5.1 * ns 5.0 - 15.0 m (4.6) (5.6) (4.7) (4.3) (2.7) Species i n Strata 4: 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.8 1.8 * * > 15.0 m (1.2) (1.7) (1.4) (1.2) (1.3) xSee Figures A28 - A32 in Appendix 2 for more detail 2See Tables A2 -A5 in Appendix 4 for l i s t s of species from each strata. ^1 to 73 more species in this Stratum than the Rivas or Puriscal locations. Generally, less than three species are found in Stratum 1. Three to five species are found in Stratum 2 (0.5-5.0 m). The TWF l i f e zone i s the most diverse in this instance and is distinct, s t a t i s t i c a l l y , from both the TMF and TPWF zones. Stratum 3 (5.0-15.0 m) i s the most species diverse of the four strata, with between 5 and 10 species present on average. The TDF and TMF are the most diverse though the TWF and TPWF,T zones do not d i f f e r greatly; a l l of these, however, are s t a t i s t i c a l l y different from the TPWF area. Within-life zone differences are not important. Like Stratum 1, Stratum 4 generally has less than three species. Between-life zone differences separate, as they did for Stratum 3, the TPWF from the TDF, TWF, and TPWF,T l i f e zones. The within-life zone differences are only of s t a t i s t i c a l significance for the San Mateo/Orotina and Pto. Vargas survey locations for the TMF zone. The Grecia/Sarchi location, within the TPWF l i f e zone, has on average more species in Stratum 1 than the other locations and in fact has a greater diversity than any other location irrespective of l i f e zone. Possibly the main reason for this difference i s related to the intensive nature of coffee production in Grecia/Sarchi. Turnover of coffee plants i s much greater because no shade is employed and the plants are managed for maximum yields. This turnover necessitates a three year waiting period after a coffee plantation i s replanted before production begins again. In the interim, farmers in the area have developed intercrops using high value vegetables which respond to intensive management and some of these vegetable crops, as a result, have been integrated into the mixed garden. TWF stands out for i t s diversity of species in Stratum 2. This Stratum of vegetation i s dominated by small woody shrubs and large herbaceous plants such as yuca (Manihot esculenta), Achiote (Bix orellana), sugarcane, coffee, chayote, chiles (Capsicum sp.) and root crops like Tiquisque and Nampi {Xanthosoma sp.). These types of plants are 74 probably more common in the TWF l i f e zone because of the dominance of pasture as the principal land use and the consequent lack of access to these plants outside the mixed garden. Differences between l i f e zones with respect to Stratum 3 and Stratum 4 can be explained by reasons given above for the other strata and for differences in the number of species. A comparison of four mixed garden tree characteristics for three of the five l i f e zones surveyed is given in Table 5-5 (see Table A7, Appendix 6 for a comparison of 45 mixed garden species). The four variables (height, canopy diameter, trunk height and canopy depth) represent an average of trees measured in Stratum 3 and Stratum 4, and includes trees of a l l ages. Analysis of. variance indicates that there are highly significant s t a t i s t i c a l differences for three of these variables. For these variables we find that the two l i f e zones, TMF and TPWF,T show considerable similarity in contrast to the TPWF zone. Mixed gardens in the TPWF,T l i f e zone are more variable in composition than the other zones as indicated by the high standard deviations for the values associated with this zone. Trees tend to be larger in the TMF and TPWF,T l i f e zones, and tend to be older on average in the TMF zone. It i s interesting that the average age of trees in the TPWF zone i s greater than that of the TPWF,T l i f e zone in contrast to the pattern found in the other variables. This latter situation may reflect either the effect of the high degree of va r i a b i l i t y within the set of TPWF,T mixed gardens and/or the influence of ecological conditions which favour smaller trees. However, caution i s required in assigning causes because of the relatively small sample sizes for which ages are known. 5.3 Relative Ecological Complexity Table 5-6 represents an assessment of the relative ecological complexity of the mixed garden in the five zones surveyed. The ranking of the gardens in terms of complexity i s based upon the rank ordering of the means of seven mixed garden variables plus the standard deviations 75 Table 5-5. A comparison of four tree characteristics for mixed gardens from three Costa Rican l i f e zones1. (Units are i n meters; numbers i n brackets refer to sample size). LIFE ZONES2 BETWEEN LIFE ZONE TMF TPWF,T TPWF DIFFERENCES3 (194) (288) (98) Height 4 x 7.86 7.88 5.01 * s.d. (3.48) (5.70) (2.70) Canopy 5.89 5.02 3.05 * Diameter (3.23) (3.34) (1.88) Trunk 2.50 3.40 3.14 * Height (1.47) (4.26) (1.74) Canopy 5.43 4.54 1.83 * Depth (2.66) (3.34) (1.14) Age 19.35 8.14 11.53 * (9.88) (6.82) (8.60) (26) (104) (107) Data only available for these three l i f e zones. 2See Table A7 in Appendix 6 for a comparison by species for 45 mixed garden species. 3* = significant @ p=0.05. 4Trees vary in age. Table 5-6. Relative ecological complexity of the mixed garden i n the five different l i f e zones summarized by ranking for a variety of ecological characteristics. LZ No. O f Species 1 Garden Size Strata { Stratal No. of Strata2 Species Strata3 } Strata4 Rank TDF 2 (4) 1 (3) 1 (2) 5 (5) 4 (5) 1 (3) 2 (4) 4 TMF 1 (1) 2 (1) 1 (3) 3 (3) 3 (2) 2 (1) 1 (1) 1 TWF 1 (3) 2 (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 1 (1) 4 (2) 3 (3) 2 TPWF,T 1 (2) 3 (1) 1 (3) 2 (4) 2 (3) 3 (4) 1 (4) 3 TPWF 3 (5) 4 (4) 2 (1) 4 (1) 5 (4) 5 (5) 4 (3) 5 Rank: 1 = most species;greatest size;most strata, greatest standard deviation (in brackets). Where two or more zones had the same mean value, they are ranked equally. Hence, not a l l parameters have rank values 1 - 5 . 76 associated with these variables. It i s assumed that the more species present, the larger the area, the more strata, the greater the standard deviations, the greater the ecological complexity of the mixed garden. Upon this basis, the five l i f e zones surveyed are ranked as follows in descending order of complexity: TMF TWF TPWF,T TDF TPWF This ranking of the ecological complexity of mixed gardens i s what one would expect i f differences in garden complexity were determined solely by between zone differences in the environment. For example, in ordering the complexity of the natural vegetation of the different l i f e zones, the TWF zone would be in f i r s t place, principally because of the lack of any moisture limitation. The TDF and TPWF l i f e zones are situated at the lower end of the complexity spectrum due to water limitations in the former and temperature limitations (particularly nocturnal temperatures) in the latter. However, as the previous discussion has indicated, the human factor i s extremely important in determining the character of the garden. Preferences and prejudices for or against different agroecosystems by farmers, participation in either a subsistence or cash-oriented economy, as well as cultural background, strongly influence the design of mixed gardens. Given the importance of the human factor i t i s therefore interesting that the ranking of ecological complexity of the gardens should correspond so well to the complexity of the natural ecosystem. 5.4 Animals i n the Mixed Garden A variety of animals was found on farms that have mixed gardens. Table 5-7 summarizes the number of farms in each l i f e zone that manage various species of animal within the mixed garden, the number of farms where the animals are permitted to roam freely in the garden, and the percentage of farms with mixed gardens that had a particular type of 77 Table 5 - 7 . Animals managed within the mixed garden on small farms i n five Costa Rican l i f e zones1. TDF TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF TOTALi (41) (36) (33) (36) (29) Chickens A 28 36 22 26 25 77.7 B 25 32 22 22 25 Pigs A 16 18 14 12 1 35.9 B 14 18 14 3 0 Ducks A 7 7 6 8 4 18.3 B 6 0 6 0 3 Calves A 1 2 2 2 1 4.6 B 0 0 0 0 0 Turkeys A 2 0 2 2 0 3.4 B 2 0 2 2 0 Bees A 1 0 2 1 0 1.7 B 1 0 2 1 0 Rabbits A 0 2 1 0 0 1-7 B 0 0 0 0 0 Tepisguintle A 0 0 0 1 2 1.7 B 0 0 0 0 0 Goats A 0 1 0 1 0 1.1 B 0 0 0 0 0 Cows A 0 0 0 0 1 0.6 B 0 0 0 ,0 0 Numbers within brackets indicate the number of farms with mixed gardens. An 'A' indicates the number of farms managing the particular animal. A 'B' refers to the number of these farms that allow the animals to roam freely in the mixed garden. 78 animal. Only three types of animal are very common on farms with mixed gardens (Table 5-8). Chickens, pigs and ducks were found on 78%, 36% and 18% of those farms. Chickens and other farm fowl are generally allowed to roam freely in the mixed garden. With the exception of the TPWF,T zone, pigs are also allowed free access, but this i s not the case for any of the other large animals encountered. The differences between-life zones i s greatest for chickens and pigs, with the TMF l i f e zone having the highest frequency of occurrence and the TPWF zone with the lowest. Domestic animals in Costa Rica have a powerful effect upon plant diversity, particularly with respect to Stratum 1. The policy of allowing fowl and pigs the freedom to graze unhindered in the mixed garden reduces the need for constant weeding. However, i t also complicates the growing of leafy vegetables and herbs by requiring these to be protected from the farm animals. The low diversity of Stratum 1 i s a reflection of this situation. The presence of animals in the garden may also affect decisions about what to grow from the perspective of providing feed for these animals. Raising animals within the mixed garden can be an important factor in the economy of this agroecosystem. One farmer interviewed recently (September 1987) had three sows in pens in his mixed garden which he bred in order to s e l l the piglets. Each piglet, at the time of the interview, sold for 3000 Colones (approx. $48US). This particular farmer had sold 21 piglets a few months previously and now had another dozen newborn piglets. Eggs and honey are also produced and sold from the mixed garden. 5.5 Mixed Garden Labour Inputs Labour inputs directed to the mixed garden originate primarily from the farm family. These inputs are summarized in Table 5-9. The farmer i s the principal agent in managing the mixed garden, putting in between 18 to 30 workdays per year. Children and wives, on average, contribute between one and eight workdays per year. Other sources of labour are 79 Table 5-8. Between-life zone comparison of the frequency of occurrence of the three most common animals i n the mixed garden. LIFE ZONE CHICKENS DUCKS PIGS TDF(41) 28(3) b 7(1) 16(2) b TMF(36) 37(2) a 7(0) 18(10)a TWF(33) 22(l) d 6(0) 14(2) b TPWF,T(36) 26(2) b 8(0) 12(3) b TPWF(29) 25(0) c 4(1) l ( l ) c Notes: Brackets following l i f e zones refer to the number farms with mixed gardens (out of 45). The numbers in brackets following Table entries represent the number of cases in which the particular animal was kept penned up. Superscript letters refer s t a t i s t i c a l differences (a>b>c>d), according to the Kruskal-Wallis One-way Analysis of Variance. See Table A8, Appendix 7 for within-life zone comparisons. Table 5-9. Average number of workdays contributed to the mixed garden during a year by family members or others. Standard deviations are given i n brackets. (1 workday = 8 hrs). BETWEEN WITHIN LIFE ZONE LIFE ZONE TDF TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF DIFFERENCES1 DIFFERENCES1 Farmer 18.82 (23.75) 22.57 (33.38) 29.95 (38.80) 29.22 (38.46) 18.07 (29.89) ns * Wife 7.99 (17.03) 6.17 (24.28) 2.69 (14.45) 4.78 (18.44) 2.67 (6.04) ns ns Children 7.17 (27.09) 1.00 (4.42) 2.28 (7.21) 5.72 (13.10) 4.17 (11.90) ns ns Other 0 0.28 (1.19) 3.10 (16.71) 0 0 ns ns 1See Figures A33 - A36 in Appendix 2 for more detail. 80 relatively unimportant. It is noteworthy that there are no s t a t i s t i c a l differences between l i f e zones for any of the variables. Likewise, within-life zone differences in farmer labour input are restricted to the TPWF,T , with the Ciudad Cortez and Rio Frio survey locations showing significant differences. Mixed garden labour inputs are surprisingly homogeneous across the five Holdridge l i f e zones, as well as within each zone. This homogeneity is evident both in the mean number of workdays contributed and the degree of v a r i a b i l i t y from one farm to another. Though the average number of workdays for the TDF and TPWF zones are lower than the other zones, the difference i s not significant because of the amount of inherent v a r i a b i l i t y . In the case of the TDF l i f e zone, the lower number of workdays contributed by farmers was probably due to the drought experienced at the time of the survey and the fact that many farmers were working off their farms. The higher number of workdays contributed by "children" for this l i f e zone is due to the same reason. For the TPWF zone, the lower number of workdays was due to smaller (on average) mixed gardens and the fact that some gardens were integrated into coffee plantations and consequently work done in managing the coffee had a complementary effect on the mixed garden. In other studies (Allison 1982; Ambar and Karyono 1976), the wives have been found to be responsible for the mixed garden, whereas in Costa Rica the farmer (head of household) is the person mainly responsible. However, i t should be stressed that generally the family, as a whole, participates and primary responsibility may change, as has happened in the TDF l i f e zone where some farmers have been forced by circumstances to seek employment off their farms. 5 . 6 Summary and Conclusions Some general conclusions follow from the data presented: 1. In general, mixed gardens are most common in the TDF region and decrease along a gradient extending to the TPWF, where 81 they are least common. Mixed gardens are more common in economically depressed areas and less so in areas where farmers are well off. The differences between the TDF and TPWF l i f e zones, with frequencies of occurrence of mixed gardens of 91% and 64% respectively, are an example of this tendency. Diversity in Costa Rican mixed gardens, as measured by the average number of plant species per mixed garden, i s quite low (i.e., 19 species) in comparison to some of the figures quoted for other areas (eg. 33 - 55 species/garden for southern Mexico; Allison 1983). However, for the individual l i f e zones, the total number of species found was 117, 133, 128, 118 and 118, for the TDF, TMF, TWF, TPWF,T and TPWF l i f e zones, respectively. The ranking of the ecological complexity of mixed gardens i s what one would expect i f differences in garden complexity were determined solely by between-zone differences in the environment. Only three types of animal are very common on farms with mixed gardens. Chickens, pigs and ducks were found on 78%, 36% and 18% of those farms, respectively. Chickens, and other farm fowl are generally allowed to roam freely in the mixed garden. With the exception of the TPWF,T zone, pigs are also allowed free access, but this i s not the case for any of the other large animals encountered. Labour inputs directed to the mixed garden originate primarily from the farm family. The farmer i s the principal agent in managing the mixed garden, putting in between 18 to 30 workdays per year. 82 CHAPTER 6 HOLDRIDGE LIFE ZONE ECOLOGY AND MIXED GARDEN VEGETATION ANALYSIS 6.0 Introduction There i s an on-going attempt to develop effective systems of land cl a s s i f i c a t i o n (Bennema 1978; Webb et a l . 1977). Approaches to this problem have differed depending upon the discipline to which particular authors belong. Thus, botanists have looked at land in terms of a physiognomic classification of plant formations (Ellenberg and Mueller-Dombois 1965/66), while foresters have tended towards bioclimatic (Holdridge 1967), biogeophysical (Krajina 1969), or forest structure systems of land classification (Webb; et a l . 1977). These latter have been considered as ecological systems of classification and have been promoted for land-use development purposes (Holdridge and Tosi 1976; Hartshorn et. a l . 1982). Given a plethora of approaches to land classification, i t i s interesting to ask the question how effective any individual system is in terms of i t s applicability to agricultural problems. In this chapter, I examine the relationship between the distribution of plant species in mixed gardens on small owner-operated farms in Costa Rica and the Holdridge World Life Zone System of Ecological Classification (Holdridge 1967). The study aims to determine whether mixed garden species assemblages are correlated to the Life Zone classification used as a basis for data sampling. In addition, the study examines alternative c l a s s i f i c a t i o n c r i t e r i a as a means of comparing the " f i t " of different approaches to land classification to the mixed garden species groupings. 6.1 Multivariate Analysis of Species Presence Data Principal coordinates (PCOA) analysis i s a multivariate procedure concerned with the identification of structure within a set of observed variables (Dillon and Goldstein 1984). PCOA was used to analyze species presence/absence data from mixed gardens to seek patterns of variable 83 groupings which could be correlated to Holdridge's World Life Zone System of Ecological Classification. This was done to test hypothesis 2: that Holdridge's system i s adequate for stratifying variation in mixed garden species composition. Some indication of variable grouping i s shown in Figure 6-1, ninety-five percent confidence ellipses of the data from the f i r s t two PCOA axes. The shape of a particular ellipse i s indicative of the complexity of the relationship being described; a long cigar-shaped elli p s e shows a situation where one axis explains most of the variance in the data. Fatter ellipses are characteristic of more complex situations. Thus, the ellipses in Figure 6-1 indicate the relative correspondence of the different groupings, as well the degree of complexity of the relationship being described. The original data set consisted of the 175 farms for which mixed gardens were present and a l i s t of 236 species that were present in one or more of these mixed gardens. This original data matrix of 175 cases by 236 variables was reduced by keeping only those variables (i.e., species) which had a correlation with one or more of the f i r s t 10 PCOA axes of 0.200 or greater. A summary of the eigenvalues 1 and accounted-for variance for the f i r s t 10 components, as derived from the PCOA of both the original data matrix and the reduced matrix, i s given in Table 6-1. The f i r s t axis accounts for less than 10 percent of total variance and the cumulative percentage of total accounted-for variance by the f i r s t 10 axes i s only 40 percent. Some improvement in the accounted-for variance was obtained by reducing the number of variables. This low degree of explanation for the variance in the data suggests that the basis for grouping the data (i.e., Holdridge l i f e zones) i s somehow inadequate. Following the PCOA, a MANOVA was performed in order to examine the degree of f i t between the Holdridge L i f e Zone Classification and the E i g e n v a l u e s a r e s c a l a r v a r i a b l e s t h a t a r e c a l c u l a t e d b y s o l v i n g a l g e b r a i c a l l y t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c e q u a t i o n o f a s q u a r e m a t r i x . T h e e i g e n v a l u e s e x p r e s s t h e a m o u n t o f t h e t o t a l v a r i a n c e i n t h e r a w d a t a e a c h c o o r d i n a t e a x i s e x p l a i n s . 84 F i g u r e 6-1. N i n e t y - f i v e p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e e l l i p s e s f o r a p l o t o f f a r m * a c c o r d i n g t o a PCOA o f m i x e d g a r d e n s p e c i e s p r e s e n c e / a b s e n c e d a t a . o to o fM o a ' OJ Q_ * i COSTR RICflN LIFEZONES -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 PCfl 1 0.0 - I — 1.0 2.0 3.0 Table 6-1. Eigenvalues and accounted-for "variance" based upon the correlation matrix input derived from Principal Components Analysis of mixed garden species data. Accounted-for Cumulative Percentage Component Eigenvalue 3 "Variance" of Total "Variance" (% of tot. var.) 236b 66c 236 66 236 66 1 156.6 146.4 6.84 8.30 6.84 8.30 2 99.5 92.0 4.35 5.22 11.19 13.52 3 89.6 78.1 3.91 4.43 15.10 17.95 4 73.3 68.2 3.20 3.87 18.31 21.82 5 68.4 65.7 2.99 3.72 21.29 25.54 6 67.9 60.8 2.96 3.45 24.26 28.99 7 60.3 56.5 2.64 3.21 26.89 32.20 8 58.3 53.2 2.55 3.02 29.45 35.22 9 57.9 52.5 2.53 2.98 31.98 38.20 10 55.2 50.7 2.41 2.88 34.39 41.07 Eigenvalues express the amount of the total variance n the raw data each coordinate axis explains. bOriginal data matrix of 175 cases (i.e., farms) by 236 variables (i.e. species). "Reduced data matrix of 175 cases by 66 variables. 86 variable groupings, as represented by the f i r s t three PCOA axes. The results of this and three other MANOVA are summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. In a l l cases, i t i s interesting to note that the variance accounted-for by the different classification c r i t e r i a , as indicated by the Sums of Squares and the "one complement of Wilks' Lambda"1, i s quite small (the larger this value the greater the amount of variance accounted for by the classification c r i t e r i a ) . Again i t should be noted that, in sum, the f i r s t three PCOA axes only represent about 18 percent of total variance. Thus, the amount of explanation provided by the different c r i t e r i a i s quite limited. The f i r s t MANOVA, as indicated previously, followed a model in which there was an interaction factor due to sub-groupings within the Li f e Zone Classification. Looking at the Sums of Squares and the one complement of Wilks' Lambda for "B", the variable representing the survey location within a particular l i f e zone, we see that there i s a large amount of unexplained variance. This suggests that there are strong differences between locations within some l i f e zones. A graphic representation of the between-location differences i s given in Figure 6-2, which shows the 95 percent confidence ellipses for each of the three survey locations for each l i f e zone. The combined results of the PCOA and the MANOVA indicate that the patterns inherent in the species presence/absence data are poorly explained by the Holdridge Life Zone Classification System. Though an alternative classification according to geo-political regions (Morales 1982) had a higher degree of explanatory power than the Holdridge system, i t was not very satisfactory either. As a consequence, two separate canonical correlation analyses (CCA) were carried out. The f i r s t CCA was based upon an amalgam of 14 geological, geographical and environmental variables (taken from published geological and meteorological records) 1 T h e o n e c o m p l e m e n t o f t h e W i l k ' s l a m b d a v a l u e , c a l c u l a t e d f r o m MANOVA, m e a s u r e s t h e v a r i a n c e a c c o u n t e d f o r b y t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . W i l k ' s l a m b d a i s a g e n e r a l s t a t i s t i c f o r h a n d l i n g t e s t s o f mean d i f f e r e n c e s i n m u l t i v a r i a t e d a t a a n a l y s i s s e t t i n g s . Table 6-2. Comparisons of Sums of Squares Rations from the ANOVA's for three different systems of vegetation classification applied to mixed garden species data from Costa Rican small farms. SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION Life zone x Location 9 Life zoneb Geopolitical Regions1* Random6 FIRST THREE PCOA AXES y l y2 y3 y l y2 y3 y l y2 y3 y l y2 y3 SSA/SST 0.182 0.296 0.153 0.193 0.284 0.210 0.223 0.527 0.190 0.023 0.001 0.001 SSB/SST 0.078 0.271 0.085 SSE/SST 0.741 0.433 0.762 0.807 0.716 0.789 0.777 0.473 0.810 0.977 0.990 0.987 aModel: yl,y2,y3 = A + A(B) +E, where A is primary classifier, B the secondary c l a s s i f i e r and E the residual. "Model: yl,y2,y3 = A + E Table 6-3. Proportion of variation in mixed garden species presence data explained by three different systems of land classification, expressed as the one complement of Wilks' Lambda,//, from MANOVA. Lifezone x Location 8 Life Zoneb Geopolitical Regions b Random' 1 -yjA 0.623 0.571 0.726 0.045 1 0.518 aModel: yl,y2,y3 = A + A(B) +E, where A is primary c l a s s i f i e r , B the secondary c l a s s i f i e r and E the residual. bModel: yl,y2,y3 = A + E 89 Figure 6-2. Ninety-five percent confidence ellipses of farms by sampling location for each of the five Holdridge l i f e zones. LIFE ZONE 1 VS. LOCATION CN <° CJ o PH I3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 PCA 1 LIFE ZONE 2 VS. LOCATION CN <°. CJ o 04 1-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 PCA 1 LIFE ZONE 3 VS. LOCATION LIFE ZONE 4 VS. LOCATION CN < ° CJ o 04 1 2 3 "3.0 -2.0 -1.0 O.o i.o PCA 1 LIFE ZONE 5 VS. LOCATION < ° CJ o 04 L l L2 L3 2.0 3.0 •3.0 1 L l 2 L2 3 L3 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 PCA 1 2.0 3.0 CN < °. O o 04 "3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 PCA 1 90 correlated to the f i r s t 10 PCOA axes derived from the previous principal coordinates analysis. In the second CCA, these axes were correlated with a set of six socio-demographic variables derived from the present study. The sets of socio-demographic and geo-environmental variables were designed to include c r i t e r i a inherent in the Holdridge Life Zone Classification System and in the geo-political classification. The results of both canonical correlations are given in Table 6-4. Though eight of the 14 geo-environmental variables and one socio-demographic variable are indicated as being important, the overall level of explanation, represented by the E l redundancy, i s less than 10 percent in both cases. It should be noted that a l l analyses were based upon principal coordinates derived from mixed garden species l i s t s . Binary data such as this have been shown to compare favourably with continuous measures in terms of information content and have long been used by British and European ecologists (Strahler 1978). Although patterns of groupings are evident in Figure 6-1, the differences are in terms of degrees of overlapping variation. There may be two factors involved in this lack of separation. The f i r s t i s the presence of species, such as Citrus, Annona, Musa and Carica papaya, which have a wide ecological range and consequently are found throughout most, i f not a l l , l i f e zones sampled. Alternatively (or combining with), farmer preference transcending any ecological rationale may be a very strong force in determining a particular species' presence or absence. In either case, the effect would be to introduce a high degree of variance in the data set which would not be explained by the c r i t e r i a behind the Holdridge cla s s i f i c a t i o n . The results of the different MANOVA, summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 appear also to be a reflection of this situation. When the MANOVA is st r a t i f i e d to include sampling locations within l i f e zones i t is obvious from the Sums of Squares and the one complement of Wilk's Lambda that there i s also much unaccounted-for variance. Differences between sampling locations within Life Zones which were Table 6-4. Structure correlations (r2) between sets of geo-environmental and socio-demographic variables* and the f i r s t canonical variate (El) from analysis of mixed garden species composition. GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC 0.8389 K 0.5714 E l v a r i a n c e e x t r a c t e d % 36.4 E l v a r i a n c e e x t r a c t e d % 16.2 E l redundancy, % 7.0 E l redundancy, % 3.3 Percent Slope 0.2736**" Years on Farm 0.0750 Geomorphology -0.2431** Garden Age -0.1115 L a t i t u d e -0.1800** Farmer Age 0.0159 Longitude -0.2178** Family S i z e -0.1273 Temperature -0.3886** Farm S i z e -0.0884 Temperature, s.d. -0.2833** Garden S i z e -0.5016*** c R e l a t i v e Humidity 0.2227** R e l a t i v e Humidity, s.d. -0.2345** Hours of Sunshine -0.1705* Hours of Sunshine, s.d. -0.0074 P r e c i p i t a t i o n 0.1227 P r e c i p i t a t i o n , s.d. 0.1263 Evaporation -0.0641 Evaporation, s.d. -0.0966 Note: Despite the v a r i e t y of environmental measurement s c a l e s used, a l l were t r e a t e d as continuous, r a t i o s c a l e v a r i a b l e s f o r the purpose of c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . Rc, c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ; E l v a r i a n c e e x t r a c t e d , that p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i a n c e i n the environmental data accounted f o r by a p a r t i c u l a r E l ; E l redundancy, th a t p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i a n c e i n species presence (as summarized by PCOA axes 1-3) accounted f o r by a p a r t i c u l a r E l . " D e f i n i t i o n s o f geo-environmental and socio-demographic v a r i a b l e s are g i v e n i n Tables A10 and A l l i n Appendix 8. "RQ .05 = 0.1480; R@ .01 = 0.1942 CR@ .05 = 0.1501; R@ .01 = 0.1965 92 highlighted in Figure 6-1 (see the cases of TMF, TWF and TPWF,T) also refer to differences between sampling locations situated either on the Pacific or Caribbean coasts, with the third on the opposite coast. There are both strong cultural and economic differences between the two coasts. The Caribbean Coast has only in the last 10-15 years become a serious focus of government efforts to improve infrastructure and rural and urban development. Consequently, this area lags considerably behind the Pacific Coastal Plain and Central Plateau regions of the country. Culturally, the Caribbean coast i s dominated by the descendants of black slaves who emigrated or escaped from the European colonies in the Caribbean. These people maintain strong links to English and Afro-Caribbean culture. Thus, the contrasts between the different coastal regions are quite evident and are l i k e l y responsible for some of the variance within l i f e zones. For the case of TPWF, the differences appear to be much more due to economic reasons. A l l three locations are coffee growing areas; however, two of these are severely depressed economically because of their situation on relatively marginal coffee soils. The third area, in contrast, i s located on f e r t i l e volcanic soils and i s among the prime areas for coffee production in Costa Rica. Such cultural and economic differences within-l i f e zones leads to a high degree of within-zone variance which i s not attributable to "ecological" c r i t e r i a such as that behind Holdridge's system. As a result of these cultural and/or economic factors the explanatory power of a system of classification which ignores them i s thus limited. Morales (1982), in a study of urbanization and i t s relationship to regional development, presents data on public investment for the six geo-political regions in Costa Rica. This information, summarized in his maps 2 and 5, indicates strong inequalities in the level of public investment between the different regions. These geo-political regions were the basis for one of the systems of classification that were tested by MANOVA (Tables 6-2 and 6-3). It is interesting to note that the Sums of 93 Squares and the one complement of Wilk's Lambda are greater than that for the l i f e zone classification, indicating that this c l a s s i f i c a t i o n accounts for more of the variance, though the differences are not strong. Prom the two MANOVA's performed i t is f a i r l y clear that either the l i f e zone or geo-political classifications w i l l result in more or less equal levels of explanation for the distribution of mixed garden species. Both the Holdridge Life Zone and the geo-political classifications summarize a number of discrete variables. For the Life Zone system these variables include evapotranspiration, biotemperature and precipitation, while the geo-political classification includes public investment in physical infra-structure, social infrastructure, urban and rural development, s c i e n t i f i c research, plus other a c t i v i t i e s . Given that the species distribution might be more responsive to one particular variable more than others and that this might be obscured in a general cl a s s i f i c a t i o n system, the two canonical correlation analyses were performed. Both CCA's were based upon data derived from the farm survey in which plant species data were collected. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 6-4, which shows the correlations of 14 geo-environmental and six socio-demographic variables to the f i r s t canonical variate. Two things are worthy of note. F i r s t l y , there are a number of correlations among the two sets of variables that appear s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant. In particular, the correlation of garden size (-0.5016) to the f i r s t canonical variate is almost twice that of the other correlations. However, though the fact that certain variables appear to be important and worthy of closer inspection, the E l redundancy values suggest a cautious interpretation. Redundancy is a measure of the total variance within a set (i.e., the f i r s t 10 PCOA axes, which represent species distribution) of a CCA that is predictable from a linear composite of the other set (i.e., the geo-environmental or socio-demographic) (Gittins 1985). The E l redundancy values for the geo-environmental and socio-demographic sets are seven percent and three percent, respectively. 94 Neither set, consequently, i s very effective in accounting for the variance within the mixed garden species data. As Gittins (1985) notes in his monograph on canonical correlation, the results of an analysis may be strongly affected by the choice of variables for study. From the previous discussion of the differences between sampling locations within-life zones i t would appear that cultural and economic variables play a major role in determining mixed garden species composition. In the analyses performed for this study neither cultural nor economic variables are strongly represented. Though the geo-political classification summarizes public spending in different regions i t i s unlikely that i t i s a precise indicator of the situation on individual farms. In addition to these variables there is the unquantified "idiosyncracy" of individual farmers which, without a doubt, influences mixed garden composition. 6.2 Summary and Conclusions Multivariate analysis i s being increasingly applied to problems in ecology (Gittins 1985). In this study the multivariate methods used show that the correlation between species assemblages in mixed gardens and the Holdridge L i f e Zone Classification i s very weak. Alternative "non-ecological" classification of the same data yielded stronger correlations, though albeit with a s t i l l low degree of explanatory power. These results suggest that the hypothesis that Holdridge's system of ecological classification i s an adequate means of stratifying the variation in species composition in mixed gardens i s false. Costa Rica i s a small developing country. Like many other developing countries, the natural forests have a l l but been eliminated (Hartshorn et. a l . 1982). Ecological classifications which ignore the human element in the landscape are inappropriate for land-use planning or research. Likewise, those systems which ignore the natural ecology of the landscape are equally inappropriate. The results of this study support the contention that a meaningful ecological system of land cla s s i f i c a t i o n in 95 an agrarian environment must include the human element. Such a system has yet to be developed. Multivariate analysis i s finding increasing application in ecology and interpretive aids for i t s use are being constantly refined (Gittins 1985). In this study multivariate methods were used to show the weakness inherent in an ecological system of land classification, as represented by the Holdridge system. There i s no reason to believe that the same methods could not be used as tools in developing a more truly ecological land cla s s i f i c a t i o n system, one which does not ignore the human element in nature's landscape. 96 CHAPTER 7 FARMING SYSTEMS IN TWO CONTRASTING LIFE ZONES IN COSTA RICA 7.0 Introduction Earlier chapters provided description of the tropical mixed garden and the rationale for studying this system. Some of the general characteristics of small farming systems were discussed in Chapter 4, while Chapter 5 described the structure and species composition of the garden and the frequency of occurrence of mixed gardens on small farms. Chapter 6 was a discussion of the Holdridge l i f e zone system of clas s i f i c a t i o n in relationship to mixed gardens. This chapter, as well as Chapters 8 and 9, examines in detail the structure of selected farming systems, the contribution of the mixed garden to the household, how i t f i t s into the overall farming system, and how i t i s managed. A farm survey of the type reported in Chapters 4 and 5, gives a static picture of the mixed garden at a particular moment. However, agroecosystems are dynamic as a result of the day-to-day and week-to-week operations. The farming system case study, as developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), provides a means by which to identify and characterize the dynamics of a farming or cropping system. Extensive discussions of this technique are given in Hardaker and Dillon (1978) and Shaner, Philipp and Schmehl (1982). Generally, researchers have attempted to track daily operations by means of weekly surveys and measurements. The focus may be the whole farm, in which case the farming system i s conceptualized as consisting of a socio-economic subsystem linking one or more agroecosystems. If the focus i s one of the agroecosystems, the crop, pests, the s o i l and possibly other factors would be considered as linked subsystems. In spite of the many farming system case studies that have been done (see Shaner, Philipp and Schmehl 1982) for a review of some of these 97 studies), l i t t l e information i s available on the tropical mixed garden. This i s thought to reflect a preoccupation with annual crops and a commercial, largely export-related focus of past studies of tropical farm production. My study, with i t s mixed garden focus, i s believed to be the f i r s t of i t s kind. The objective of the case studies reported here was to obtain a set of weekly input-output data for each of six farming systems. These data provide the basis for an ecological (Chapter 8) and economic (Chapter 9) analysis of the mixed garden, from which the question of the mixed garden's agroforestry potential i s addressed. The major analysis i s concerned with differences between various agroecosystems on particular farms. A secondary analysis examines the differences between farms in two different l i f e zones. The economic analysis compares the relative commercial success of the farming systems and their component agroecosystems. Economics is the traditional measure of farming success, but i t i s an incomplete measure because i t ignores benefits which affect quality of l i f e , spiritual enrichment, ecological v i a b i l i t y , and sustainability. The objective of the ecological analysis i s to provide a broader basis for a comparison between the perennial home garden and the commercial cropping systems. Chapters 7, 8 and 9 are based upon a year of weekly interviews with each of six farmers and their families; three in each of two different l i f e zones. In addition, a variety of ecological measurements were made. Because of the extent of the data, results are presented in the text as summary tables and figures, with the original data available in the Appendices. Results of the between-life zone comparison are presented f i r s t , followed by the analysis of the individual farms. This i s a different approach to that of a typical farming system case study, which would generally concentrate on the "average" farming system within a zone. However, unlike commercial cropping systems which tend to conform to a standard management pattern, the mixed garden reflects a pattern of unique 98 historical development affected not the least by the individual farmer's personality. Although there are commonalities between mixed gardens on different farms, the considerable v a r i a b i l i t y of these systems i s interesting, and i t s documentation was the objective of my study. 7.1 Case Study Descriptions 7.1.1 Pitahaya Of the three case studies situated in Pitahaya, two of the farmers maintain their residences in the village and commute a kilometer or more to their farms, while one lives on his farm. Some details related to each of the case studies' households are given in Table 7-1. These three contrasting households represent the typical diversity found amongst the farming population in the Tropical Dry Forest l i f e zone. FARM 226 This farming system was unlike the others in this study in that i t involved two households. Two brothers, Miguel and Nancho Badilla, work the 5.5 ha farm together. Miguel, the older and more educated of the two, does most of the marketing, while Nancho handles the heavier f i e l d work. Miguel's participation in the day-to-day fieldwork was restricted by a heart condition. At 57, Miguel has a dis a b i l i t y pension due to this heart condition. Both brothers maintain residences in Pitahaya. However, during the dry season Nancho moves his family to the farm site where they stay in a bamboo shack. The children of Miguel are grown and li v i n g on their own, except for a son in his mid-twenties who has a mental handicap. Nancho's children are a l l of school age. Though the brothers grow maize and rice for home consumption, their farm operations are mainly commercial in nature. They use credit and are open to innovation, i f profitable. The profit motive, however, has not stimulated any desire to expand the size of the farm. At i t s current size, both brothers are able to manage a l l farm duties with only occasional help from family or hired labourers. Neither brother was interested in taking Table 7-1. Description of households for the six farming system case studies, with details on family structure and assets. Life Zone Farm Family Bouse Appliances A S S E T S Vehicle Equipment Property Off-Farm Employment Househo ld #1 226 - 2 a d u l t s - M e n t a l l y h a n d i -capped son Househo ld #2 - 2 a d u l t s - 3 s c h o o l a g e c h i l d r e n and one newborn - Wood & c o n c r e t e b l o c k w i t h wood £ cement f l o o r - 4 BR - Wood S t o v e - E l e c t r i c S t o v e - TV £ S t e r e o Toyo ta p i c k u p - I r r i g a t i o n pump 2 b i c y c l e s w i t h t u b i n g - T r a i l e r - M i s c . hand t o o l s - Wood & - Wood s t o v e c o n c r e t e b l o c k - TV £ S t e r e o w i t h cement f l o o r - 4 BR - Bamboo shack on f a r m s i t e 1 2 f t b o a t 2 b i c y c l e s - 2 o u t b o a r d m o t o r s - M i s c . hand t o o l s - Backpack s p r a y e r So la r (15mx60m) - W i f e : I C E S o l a r ( 1 5 m x l 5 m ) 221 - 2 a d u l t s - Wood w i t h ( i n c l u d e s m o t h e r ) wood f l o o r - 2 s c h o o l a g e - 3 BR c h i l d r e n - Wood s t o v e - TV £ r a d i o B i c y c l e M i s c . hand t o o l s - So la r (30mx30m) - C o n t r a c t Backpack s p r a y e r work w i t h La G l o r i a 303 - 2 a d u l t s - 2 t e e n a g e d sons - w o o d ( o l d ) - T r a d , f i r e p l a c e - 1 2 f t b o a t w i t h d i r t f l o o r k e r o s e n e lamp - 2 b i c y c l e s - 2BR M i s c . hand t o o l s - S o l a r ( 1 5 m x l 5 m ) - O c c a s i o n a l Backpack s p r a y e r w i t h house o f f - f a r m - S o l a r ( 1 5 m x l 5 m ) c o n t r a c t work ( b o t h i n P i t a h a y a ) 300 T P W 301 F T - 2 a d u l t s - 2 t e e n a g e r s - 1 s c h o o l a g e d g r a n d s o n - 1 p r e - s c h o o l e r - Wood £ - Wood s t o v e - 3 h o r s e s c o n c r e t e b l o c k - TV s s t e r e o - B i c y c l e w i t h wood f l o o r T y p e w r i t e r - 4 BR M i s c . h a n d t o o l s s a d d l e r y Backpack s p r a y e r N/A - Husband works as n i g h t w a t c h -man 2 a d u l t s 2 c h i l d r e n - Wood £ - Wood s t o v e c o n c r e t e b l o c k - TV w i t h wood f l o o r - 2 BR - Wood; 2 BR ( r e n t e d o u t ) - B i c y c l e M i s c . h a n d t o o l s Backpack s p r a y e r N/A - Husband works as f i e l d hand on f a t h e r - i n - l a w ' s f a r m 302 - 2 a d u l t s - 3 t e e n a g e d d a u g h t e r s - Wood £ c o n c r e t e b l o c k w i t h wood f l o o i - 4 BR Wood s t o v e TV 3 h o r s e s - M i s c . hand t o o l s - S a d d l e r y - A p i a r y e q u i p . So la r (24mx21m) i'oo on the task of managing the hired help that a larger farm would require. A schematic description of Farm 226 i s given in Figure 7-1. The farmed land was subdivided into four agroecosystems. The largest of these, at 2.1 hectares, i s the system that I have designated "rice-pipian-maize-watermelon". The organization of activities on this area i s outlined in Table 7-2. Maize (Zea mays) was cropped a l l year long and was interplanted with the rice (Oryza sativa) and pipian (Cucurbita pepo)/watermelon (Cucwnis melo). Different varieties of rice are planted, most of which was for household consumption. Black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) are sometimes grown together with maize on part of the area. The cropping sequence followed involves two seasonal crops •— melons for the dry season and rice during the wet season. Table 7-2. Crop Cropping sequence and pattern for the "rice-pipian-maiz-watermelon" agroecosystem. M M N Variety Rice Rice Rice 2 Maize3 Maize Pipian Water-melon P1 * * HA P * * H Pl P2 P3 P4 * * Pl * P2 * HI * H H H HI H2 H3 H4 H2 P * P * P * Chimbolo/100 days Nirita/100 days Costa Rica/ 120 days Hibrido Unknown Unknown Unknown P = p l a n t i n g ; H = h a r v e s t P l a n t i n g s t a g g e r e d . 1 0 d a y s a p a r t M a i z e f o r home c o n s u m p t i o n o n t h e c o b Plantain (Musa paradisiaca) was the main commercial crop and occupies 1.46 hectares. It takes from 10 to 18 months to mature, and once established was managed as a perennial crop. Individual plantain plants varied between 4-5 meters in height, and the planting arrangement provided for a closed canopy and heavy shade. Weed problems were negligible. The "papaya (Papaya carica)/soursop (Annona muricata)" agroecosystem, Figure 7-1. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows for Farm 226, Pitahaya. p e n s i o n s s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s u b s y s t e m i f i r e w o o d ) - -a g r o a c o s y s t e m t r i c e - p i p i a n - m a i z e - m e l o n p l a n t a i n m e l o n - m a i z e - p l a n t a i n p a p a y a - s o u r s o p m i x e d g a r d e n 0 a r i c e , p l p i a n , m a i z e , m e l o n , w a t e r m e l o n , b l a c k b e a n ^ p l a n t a i n . ( s o l d p r i o r t o * a n y p r o d u c t i o n ) p a p a y a , s o u r s o p e g g s , c h i c k e n , m a n g o , c o c o n u t , l e m o n , n i s p e r o , w a t e r a p p l e , c a s , c a s h e w , g u a j a v a , p a p a y a , b a n a n a 102 which was initiated during the study, evolved out of a small planting near the on-site hut. Both these fruits command high prices and seem to grow well in the area. About half a hectare was dedicated to this mixed planting. An area of about 0.60 hectare was acquired just prior to i n i t i a t i n g the study but was later traded for two outboard motors and a large portable radio-cassette player. The mixed garden was not contiguous with the other agroecosystems; i t was around the household in the village of Pitahaya. This system i s described later in more detail. The land farmed by the Badilla brothers is adjacent to the Aranjuez River. This has permitted irrigation during the dry season, which makes possible the production of melon (cantaloupe) and pipian. Proximity to the river also allows the transport of plantain and melons by boat to the town of Puntarenas during the year, except during the driest months when water levels are too low. Both brothers are competent farmers and not adverse to seeking outside technical advice i f problems arise. A government agronomist i s stationed in Esparta, a town about 40 kilometers from Pitahaya. By not dedicating the farm to high-risk, high-reward commercial monocultures of rice or melon, the Badilla brothers have managed to develop a stable and relatively secure farming system. They receive a monthly income from the plantain and in the future this w i l l be supplemented by the increased production of papaya and soursop. During the drier months, income was supplemented by the production of rice, melon, pipian, maize and beans. Melon and pipian are profitable cash crops and provide substantial additional income. The rice, maize and beans provide for both household's consumption of these staples. Miguel's pension, together with his wife's salary, relieves some of the anxiety normally inherent in farming. Also, i t makes i t easier to negotiate bank loans for farm purchases, such as the irrigation equipment. F i g u r e 7 - 2 . W e e k l y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l a b o u r b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t a g r o e c o s y s t e m s on Farm 2 2 6 , P i t a h a y a . Plantain Rice/Com/Melon H o u r s 7 0 T 60' 50- • 40- • 30- • 20--10' JUUL • 11 m 111 i w w H W H mm i imm 111 i t i 9 14 18 24 29 34 39 Week Lull 44 20 T 18--16-14-H 1 2 . . o U 10-r s ••• 6 -4- • 2- • Soursop/ Papaya - M - -+- I I I 14 19 24 29 34 39 Week 44 I I I I I I 49 l i t ! 54 40 j 35- • 30- • 25" 20 -15-10-Mixed Garden 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 Week Figure 7-3. Relatiue weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between different agroecosystems on Farm 226, Pitahaya. 1 0 e H l l l l l l i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I l l l l l l l l H l l l l I 90-11 80-1 70-11 60-11 50-11 40-11 30-11 20-11 10-11 0 PpPrFFrFrFFFFPFFrF 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 Week • Mixed Garden • Soursop/ Papaya • Rice/Corn/ Melon • Plantain 105 This income was an important advantage for the success of this farming system. Family labour and land are the principal resources that a l l the farming systems have access to in varying degrees. The total number of hours of labour (including hired) used each week, and their distribution between different agroecosystems on Farm 226 are shown in Figure 7-2. This farming system used a maximum of about 100 hours per week on a l l agroecosystems, excluding the mixed garden. Time spent working in the mixed garden was arguably of a different quality than that dedicated to commercial and subsistence ac t i v i t i e s . There was an observable leisure aspect to the work invested in the mixed garden that distinguishes i t from the effort in managing the plantain, for example. Out of the 49 weeks for which data are presented, 10 were solely dedicated to maintenance or harvesting of the mixed garden. Two weeks of the 49 were given over to leisure a c t i v i t i e s . The mixed garden was also the most consistent focus of farm labour. This latter point i s highlighted in Figure 7-3, which shows the relative percentage of the weekly labour directly to the different agroecosystems. FARM 221 Of the six case studies, this particular farming system was the least active. When f i r s t interviewed, the farmer managed a system including a mixed garden, an area of mixed f r u i t trees, and rented land for rice production. However, by the time weekly v i s i t s for the case study began, , the farmer had lost access to land for planting rice. Consequently, there was l i t t l e intensive farming activity on this farm for much of the study, though during i t s later stages the farmer sharecropped maize with his brother. Information on this household i s given in Table 7-1 and a schematic description of the farming system i s found in Figure 7-4. The available land was insufficient, both in terms of extent and quality, for Don Jorge, the farmer, to subsist on. Consequently, he worked during the day (7 a.m. Figure 7-4. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows for Farm 221, Pitahaya. 107 - 2 p.m.) as a labourer on the nearby Hacienda La Irma. His sister also worked and lived on the Hacienda and contributed economically to the household, which included their mother and a nephew and niece. Don Jorge also worked cutting sugarcane during the summer harvest. Harvesters are paid by the tonne and a good worker can make more than the day-wage paid to farm workers. This harvest can last two or three months and draws workers from different parts of the country. Necessary work in Don Jorge's own f i e l d or on the sharecropped land was done in the late afternoon, after resting from either cutting cane or working on the Hacienda. Don Jorge was the most resource poor of the three farmers from Pitahaya participating in this study. His own farm was situated near the site of the old abandoned village of Pitahaya at the edge of the mangrove swamp. The farm suffers, in parts, from inundation. A variety of pests, such as the Red Palm Weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineous) and land crabs, made i t d i f f i c u l t to establish tree seedlings or herbaceous crops. In addition, the only access to the farm was by a foot path that passes through another farm (Farm 303). Thus, only as much harvest can be taken at one time as can be carried by hand or on a bicycle. A road does reach the border of Farm 303, but this was only passable during the dry season. Don Jorge's mixed f r u i t agroecosystem consisted of a seemingly random mixture of banana, mango, coconut and tamarind trees. Whatever order was originally inherent in the plantings has been eroded by mortality and poor upkeep. The area was often l e f t to overgrow with grasses and sedges due to lack of time or lack of energy. The coconut and mango trees were the principal source of income from this agroecosystem. Though the s o i l on Don Jorge's farm was not considered suitable for either annual or perennial crops, the f r u i t trees that were established were productive. Productivity would be much enhanced i f they could be protected by drainage ditches that would lower the water table and prevent inundations. Also, the l i f e of the coconut palms would be extended i f the F i g u r e 7 -5 . W e e k l y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l a b o u r b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t a g r o e c o s y s t e m s on Farm 2 2 1 , P i t a h a y a . 35 T 30- • 26+ H O » + u r i5+ s 10+ 5- • H o u r s Mixed Fruit 1 1 1 1 1 1 A i 1 1 1 t i 1 1 1 i w A i i * A i Xhii o I i W J I i i i i i i i H w i i 11 i i 11 m 11 i i f i i i PI I" 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 Week Mixed Garden 24 29 34 39 Week 16+ 14 H 1 2 + O i o • u r 8 s Rice/Maiz J H I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H I I I I 1 14 19 24 29 34 39 Week 44 49 54 Figure 7-6. Relative weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between the di f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 221, Pitahaya. 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Nixed Garden R ice/Na iz Nixed Fruit 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 Week 110 Red Palm Weevil could be controlled. These measures are cost and labour intensive and, with only a labourer's income, beyond the reach of this farmer. Rice or maize was planted on a half hectare when and where land can be found and obtained on a share-cropping arrangement. During the study Don Jorge was unable to obtain land on his own and eventually entered into an arrangement with a brother. These arrangements are purely directed to home consumption. The mixed garden w i l l be described and discussed later. Farm 221 used a maximum of approximately 37 hours per week of family labour for i t s own farming a c t i v i t i e s . The weekly distribution of family labour is shown in Figure 7-5. Labour was directed principally towards the mixed garden, a fact which is highlighted by Figure 7-6, probably due to the distance of the mixed f r u i t orchard from the household. Working eight hours in the hot sun on the local "hacienda" does not motivate a person to pedal a kilometer or so to work some more. Don Jorge has been a wage earner since he was eight years old, when his mother and father separated. At 52 he now feels that he has worked enough. He does what he can with the resources available to him and was resigned to the current situation. FARM 303 Situated on 10.5 hectares of the old Pitahaya village site, this was one of the few farming systems in the area, apart from the Hacienda La Irma, that raised cattle. The herd consisted of a year-old Brahma bu l l , eight mixed-breed cows, four heifers and two calves. The farmer, Don Pedro Perez, had lived in the area most of his l i f e and has had the farm for about 20 years. Much of his experience as a farmer has been with sugarcane and with rice production. However, he believed that cattle were a safe investment and that there is considerable prestige in having cattle. The care of the cattle, nonetheless, was l e f t as the responsibility of Don Pedro's wife and two younger sons. I l l When f i r s t interviewed there were about 15 people in three different households l i v i n g on the farm in different houses. By the time the case study began, the other households had moved and the situation was as described in Table 7-1. The overall farming system i s described in Figure 7-7 and consists of 8.5 ha dedicated to pasture, 1.4 ha to mixed f r u i t trees, and the remaining 0.7 to mixed garden. In addition, Don Pedro cropped rice on four hectares rented from another farmer. He also planted rice on another five hectares from Hacienda La Irma. The pastures were unimproved and the grass used for cattle forage was poorly established. In two of the pastures Don Pedro has managed to seed-in "estrella" (Cynodon plectostachyus), a hardy grass that makes good forage. However, the remaining five pastures were mostly dominated by sedges, which are poor forage for cattle. These areas remained undeveloped partly because the soils were s t i l l too saline to allow more favourable grasses to establish themselves. The extreme dryness of the year preced-ing the study had impaired the progress of "sweetening" of the pasture s o i l . This "sweetening" process follows the leaching of salts by rain water, aided by drainage ditches dug by Don Pedro. With 15 head of cattle, the farm was overstocked for the quality of the pasture. Some f r u i t trees provided shade in some of the pastures. Coconut, mango, tamarind and sapote trees are found in the mixed f r u i t orchard. The organization of the planting did not follow any particular plan. Spacing of the trees was irregular and the canopy cover was quite variable. This was an area of high ground that was less prone to flooding during the raining season or during exceptional tides. Management of this area was limited to occasional weeding and harvesting. The rice agroecosystems were both commercial operations. These commercial agroecosystems were required by the rice m i l l which purchases the rice production to meet certain conditions in terms of their management. These conditions involved the timing and rate of application Figure 7-7. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows for Farm 303, Pitahaya. tf <>'>/, « y^ji s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s u b - s y s t e m i t i r e w o o a h o u s e h o ^ d ^ ^ l a b o u r _ J _ J - 4 I a g r o e c o s y s t e m p a s t u r e ' I p a s t u r e 2 1 p a s t u r e 3 1 p a s t u r e 4 p a s t u r e 5 p a s t u r e 6 | p a s t u r e 9—» f r u i t o r c h a r d 1 . 4 h a m i x e d g a r d e n 0 . 7 h a r i c e 5 h a M h a ( r e n t e d l a n d ) • - ¥ l i v e s t o c k , m i l k t a m a r i n d J c o c o n u t , b a n a n a , * • m a n d a r i n , p l a n t a i n m a n g o , g r a p e s , l e m o n , c a s h e w , s o u r o r a n g e s , s o u r s o p , p i g s _ e g g s r i c e , c o r n 113 of herbicides and f e r t i l i z e r . An agronomist from the Bank where Don Pedro received his loan for rice production oversaw the operation. Farm operations involving the production of rice were supported by agricultural loans whose terms dictated the system of management (i.e., requirements for use of pre-emergent herbicides, f e r t i l i z e r s , e t c . ) . Resources dedicated to Don Pedro's own land were principally in the form of family labour and the occasional use of surplus agro-chemicals from rice production. Farm 303 used a maximum of over 250 hours of labour per week (Figure 7-8) during the period of rice cultivation. Before and after the rice cultivation period, the number f e l l to about 50 hours. The mixed garden was a consistent focus for family labour (Figure 7-9), which probably reflects the efforts of Don Jorge's wife. Both the pasture and mixed f r u i t agroecosystems were virtua l l y ignored during the rice production period. Family labour for development of either the pastures or the rice fields was affected by the poor relationship Don Pedro had with his younger sons. Having worked hard a l l his l i f e , Don Pedro found i t hard to accept the attitudes of his own sons and the other young men of the village. These attitudes, conditioned by the institution of minimum wage laws and television, reflect an expectation of more than a l i f e of labour in the cane or rice fields. As a result of these differences, Don Pedro often found himself in bitter arguments with his younger sons which often ended in their leaving home for a time. This household lived in the most primitive of conditions, without running water or e l e c t r i c i t y . The house was an old plank structure with a d i r t floor subject to inundation during the rainy season, when the adjacent drainage canal overflows. Don Pedro owned a house and other property in the Village of Pitahaya. He also had a better quality house with a cement floor not more than a hundred meters from his present home. However, inspite of the poor health that he and his wife suffer from, he refused to move. His motives for this were not entirely clear, though i t F i g u r e 7-8. W e e k l y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l a b o u r b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t a g r o e c o s y s t e m s on Farm 3 0 3 , P i t a h a y a . Pasture Fruit Orchard H o u r s 50 j ii M r l l l M , | » 34 30 44 4 Week 14 10 24 54 Rice 1 160 • 140' 120 • H Q , o o u ao r 60+ s 40 20 28 34 30 Week 54 M, JU iU h i Rice 2 14 10 24 i i t 1111 H I i i t i i i i n i 20 34 30 Week 40 54 Figure 7-9. Relative d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between the d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 303, Pitahaya. • Mixed Garden • Rice 2 • Rice 1 • Fru i t Orchard • Pasture 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 Week 116 was important to maintain a presence on the farm in order to watch and care for the cattle. Don Pedro was a deeply religious Seventh Day Adventist and thus may have the belief that some suffering and sacrifice i s a necessary part of l i f e . 7.1.2 San Juan Sur Typical of small farming systems in the area, the case study farms in San Juan Sur consisted of two or more non-contiguous f i e l d s . Two of the households were located on one of the farm fields, while the third (and i t s garden) was situated apart from the actual farm lands. Some details of each of the households are given in Table 7-1. A l l households are serviced by a municipal water supply and e l e c t r i c i t y . FARM 300 The most fragmented of the farming systems (Figure 7-10), Farm 300 consists of five different fields which averaged 0.4 ha i n size. One of these fields was the location of the homestead and mixed garden. The other fields were scattered about within five- or ten-minutes walking distance of the homestead. Four of the five agroecosystems (including the mixed garden) which comprised this farming system involved the cultivation of coffee. These four agroecosystems differed by the particular mixture of f r u i t or palm trees acting as shade for the coffee plants. The smallest (approx. 0.3 ha) of the five disjunct agroecosystems was the system denoted as "coffee/pejibaye (Guilielma gasipaes)". Adjacent to the house and separated by a public road, this system was on steeply sloping land (slope - 88 to 100%). Providing shade were two orange trees, a guayaba (Psidium guajava), a pejibaye (with 3 or 4 stems) and several banana plants. The largest (0.7 ha) of the agroecosystems (denoted as "cof fee/avocado") was about 10 or 15 minutes walk down-slope from the house. This area was also sloping, but much more gently (20 to 30%). Banana plants, together with an avocado (Persea americana) and sapote Figure 7-10. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows for Farm 300, San Juan Sur. c o f f e e , b a n a n a , b r e a d f r u i t , c a i b a s , c h a y o t e , p e j i b a y a , l e m o n , o r a n g e s , p l a n t a i n , s q u a s h , p i n e a p p l e , c o r n , e g g s , c h i c k e n , f i r e w o o d c o f f e e , b e a n s , c a s s a v a , s w e e t l e m o n , t i q i s q u e c o f f e e , b a n a n a , s u g a r c a n e , l e m o n s , o r a n g e s , g r a p e f r u i t s , s w e e t l e m o n s , s o u r o r a n g e s , c u c u m b e r , f i r e w o o d 118 (Licaria platypus) trees provided partial shade. The primary shade crop was poro (Erythrlna sp.), a legume which i s reputed to be a nitrogen fixer. Nearby the "coffee/avocado" site was the "coffee/mango" system. The slope was greater (40 to 50%) at this site. Erosion control barriers were initiated, but due to a shortage of manpower have not been completed. Most of the coffee shade was provided by poro and varnillo (Stryphnodendron excelsum) trees. Several orange trees provided an additional source of income, together with a large manzana de agua (Eugenia malaccensls). A mango (Manglfera Indlca) tree was also found at this site, but i t rarely bore f r u i t because flowering was disrupted by seasonal heavy rain. The "yuca (Manlhot esculenta)/chayote (Sechlum edule)" agroecosystem was not associated with coffee production. It provided for some of the household consumption of yuca, chayote and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan). Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) was grown and harvested periodically for feeding horses owned by the family. Not directly a part of this farming system, but used extensively for grazing the two horses, was the public road passing by the house. This grassy area represented the main grazing area for the horses. Description of the mixed garden i s deferred to later when an ecological profile of the garden i s presented. The history of this farm's development has been one of acquiring land when and where i t became available. A description of the farm system i s given in Figure 7-10, while some details on the household are given in Table 7-1. Don Alvaro Navarro, the farmer, like many other farmers who do not have very much land, had an off-farm job (night-watchman for a business in the town of Turrialba) which allowed him to work part of the day on the farm. This job was important to the Navarros as i t supplemented farm income and also provided security in case a bank loan becomes necessary from time to time. 119 An older unmarried daughter also works off the farm as a l i v e - i n servant for one of the wealthier families in the area. This daughter contributes to the household, which includes her two children who are under the care of Don Alvaro and his wife. Education for their seven children was an important p r i o r i t y with the Navarros, three of whom have graduated from university while a fourth was currently at university. The two younger children were s t i l l in high school. This desire by Don Alvaro to give his children the best possible education was what kept him tied to his off-farm job, though he had expressed the wish to end this job. Coffee was the principal crop on this farm and most farms in the area. As a perennial shrub grown on the slopes of a valley, machines were rarely useful in the management of coffee. Hand labour, which i s essential for weeding and harvesting, was exclusively family labour on this farm. Agrochemicals were used, i f warranted, by the anticipated selling price of the coffee and by the requirements of the coffee plants. Farm 300 used a maximum of about 150 hours per week (Figure 7-11) of labour during the peak coffee-harvesting period. Outside this period, average weekly labour was less than 40 hours per week. The relative share of weekly labour for each of the five agro-ecosystem components of the farming system is shown in Figure 7-12. From this i t i s clear the "yuca/chayote" system is the least intensively managed. "Coffee/avocado", being the largest of the five production areas, absorbs the biggest share of the labour invested. The mixed garden and the "coffee/mango" systems are similar in the amount of labour input. Undoubtedly, the coffee component of the mixed garden was responsible for i t s relatively large labour input. Labour input by the family was restricted because of the farmer's off-farm employment and by the priority given to the children's education. Increased labour input could be expected i f the farmer were to leave his off-farm job or i f one of his sons choose to take up farming. F i g u r e 7 - 1 1 . W e e k l y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l a b o u r b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t a g r o e c o s y s t e m s on Farm 3 0 0 , San J u a n S u r . 40 T 35 H 3 0 O 2 5 U 20-r is S.o+ 5 0 1 I I t I I I I I I I Coffee/ Pejibaye i l l 4-+- . . . i t 100" 90-80 70 • 60 50 40 30 20 10 Coffee/ Avocado Linn! 11 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 Weekly 80 70--H 6 0 o *>+ U 4 0 -r 3o S 2 0 10- • 0 Coffee/ Mango •JUL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •H i11 rl 11 i 5 10 15 20 25 30 36 41 46 51 56 Weekly 4 0 T 35 „ 25 o U 20 r 15+ S 10-5- • 0 Mixed Garden 11,,,, ,1 a I w 11 1 W W I I 5 10 15 20 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 25 T 20 15 10 • 5 Weekly Yuca/ Chayote i n l m l i i l i i i i 1 I I I I I I I I I I M I I A I 5 10 15 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 J i Weekly to o Weekly 60 40 38 28 10 0 San Juan Sur. Figure 7-12. Relative weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between the different agroecosystems on Farm 300, 90-1 80-1 78-1 • Nixed Garden • Yuca/ Chayote % 50-HI • Coffee/ Nango Coffee/ Avocado Co f f ee/ Pej i baye 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 Weekly 122 During most of the case study, Don Alvaro had two horses which were used to transport materials to and from the fields. However, the best of these animals died after eating a noxious plant. The local veterinarian valued the animal at about US$600, and this represented a serious loss of capital for Don Alvaro. FARM 301 This farm was run by Don Bolivar, the youngest farmer (age 30) of the six case studies. Like Farm 300, i t consisted of different and non-contiguous fi e l d s . Two of these were planted with coffee and a third with sugarcane. The fourth was the site of the homestead and mixed garden, but also had some coffee. The total farm size, as indicated by Figure 7-13, was a l i t t l e over one hectare. A description of the household i s given in Table 7-1. The father of this young family works during the day as a farm labourer for his father-in-law, and then works his own farm in the afternoons and on week-ends. During the coffee harvest the wife worked as a coffee picker. This farmer, like Don Jorge (Farm 221) of Pitahaya, was resource poor. With only about a hectare of land broken up into four different scattered fields, Don Bolivar was unable to avoid off-farm employment. Labour inputs at their maximum were about 110 hours per week; however, weekly inputs were usually less than 20 hours per week (Figure 7-14). The relative weekly distribution of labour (Figure 7-15) shows that the coffee and sugarcane systems received the major portion of inputs. Mixed garden inputs were both irregular and small. For a time the family made and sold ice cream to neighbours, but i t turned out not to be very profitable. Also, a second two-room house on the homestead was rented out. This house was eventually vacated and torn down. Don Bolivar was active in the community on the local soccer team and different committees. He was ambitious but this attitude was tempered by his fondness for sports and a tendency towards accident-proneness. Having Figure 7-13. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows for Farm 301, San Juan Sur. , ' ' ' . f -s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s u b - s y s t e m a g r o e c o s y s t e m c o f f e e c o f f e e £ p l a n t a i n c o f f e e ( h o u s e ) £ f r u i t s u g a r c a n e m i x e d g a r d e n c o f f e e , c a s a a v a , r e n t , m a n d a r i n , b a n a n a , l e m o n s , p l a n t a i n fe o f f e e , s u g a r c a n e , p l a n t a i n , f i r e w o o d c a s s a v a , p l a n t a i n , b a n a n a , l e m o n , o r a n g e s m a n d a r i n , g r a p e f r u i t , c h a y o t e , s q u a s h , e g g s , t i q u i q u e , c h i c k e n ro F i g u r e 7 - 1 4 . W e e k l y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l a b o u r b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t a g r o e c o s y s t e m s on F a r m 3 0 1 , San J u a n S u r . 1 2 j H i o -O 8 U 6 r 4 0 Coffee 1 J U 9 14 19 24 29 34 30 44 49 54 Weekly 120 100 H so 0 U 60 r s 4 0 20-0-Sugarcane H 25+ U 20 r is s,o 5 0 Coffee 2 | • • • • • • • • • • I I M I I I * W I P I I W l 8 1 4 19 24 29 34 39 44 Weekly Coffee 3 B T H 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 Weekly Mixed Garden *^ ' ' * 11 11 * 11 ll 34 39 44 49 54 H o 6 U 4 r , 111111 l i i iHiii lnil 9 M 19 24 29 34 39 Weekly i Figure 7-15. Relative weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between the different agroecosystems on Farm 301i San Juan Sur. t 0 0 H l l l l l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l 90 - 1 1 40 30 20 10 0 7 0 i l l • Mixed Garden 6 0 TI • Coffee 3 % 50 411 • Sugarcane Coffee 2 Coffee 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 Weekly 126 not finished grade school, he was encouraging his school-age son to do well as he realizes the d i f f i c u l t y of finding a well-paying job without a high school diploma. FARM 302 This was a highly diverse and active farming system to which the farmer, Don Francisco Bermudez, dedicated his f u l l time. As shown by Figure 7-16, the farm consisted of three separated areas, one of which was the mixed garden and household. The larger (4.21 ha) of the remaining two areas was about 20 minutes by horse from the home and consisted of coffee, pasture, and mixed plantain/yuca/vegetable production systems. The upper border of this property, adjacent to a public road, had as part of the fence line a planting of orange trees. Another part of this area remains undeveloped. Closer to the home (about 5 minutes on foot) was another area of about 2.60 ha which was in pasture, sugarcane and a vegetable-root garden. This area also bordered a public road. Data on the household are given in Table 7-1. Don Francisco had four daughters, one of whom was married and liv i n g off the farm. The youngest daughter was s t i l l in school and participated in farm a c t i v i t i e s after school and on week-ends. As a consequence, and because of the high cost of hired labour, Don Francisco managed the farm with his two older, unmarried daughters. His wife helped in the fields during the coffee harvest but, at other times, her activities were limited to care of the house and the mixed garden. Being labour-poor, Don Francisco was not able to maintain the different cropping systems, particularly the coffee, in the manner he would have liked. Though his daughters worked as hard as any man, there was more work than the family alone could provide to attain the ideal cropping conditions. Farm 302 was the most complex of the six farming systems examined. In this regard, the amount (Figure 7-17) and pattern (Figure 7-18) of labour inputs reflects this complexity. About 210 hours per week of labour was used during the peak sugarcane Figure 7-16. Schematic representation of the structure and material flows for Farm 302, San Juan Sur. s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s u b - s y s t e m a g r o e c o s y s t e m f p a s t u r e ( c o w s ) 1 1 . 9 b a r"—I h o r s e s 0 . 7 h a c o f f e e 2 . 6 3 h a s u g a r c a n e 0 . 5 3 h a v e g e t a b l e £ r o o t g a r d e n 0 . 1 4 h a m i x e d g a r d e n p l a n t a i n , c a s s a v a , & v e g e t a b l e s 0 . 1 8 h a f a l l o w 0 . 7 h a m i l k , c a s h c o f f e e , b a n a n a , l e m o n , i t a b o f l o w e r s , f i r e w o o d , , o r a n g e s a r a c a c h a , s q u a s h , n a m e , b l a c k b e a n s , c a b b a g e , n a n c i , s w e e t p o t a t o e s , g r e e n b e a n s , r a d i s h , r e d b e a n s , m a l a n g a , t i q u i q u e , c a s s a v a , w i n g b e a n s . h o n e y , c h i c k e n , e g g s , r a b b i t , p i g , m a l a n g a , a r r a c a c h a , s w e e t p o t a t o e s , n a n c i , c a s s a v a , b a n a n a , t e p i s q u i n t l e , c h a y o t e , o r g a n e s , w a t e r a p p l e , c a s tp l a n t a i n , c a s s a v a , g r e e n b e a n s to F i g u r e 7 - 1 7 . W e e k l y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l a b o u r b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t a g r o e c o s y s t e m s on Farm 3 0 2 , San J u a n S u r . Coffee so • 40 • 30 20 10' OIH 12 10 26 33 40 47 54 Plantain/ Yuca 3 5 -H 3 0 o 2 5 U 20-r is S 1 0 5 O M M M i t 12 19 26 33 40 47 54 Root Gar ten . „ * i i i w i i i i i i n i * * i i i ^ i m m * i i i 12 19 26 33 40 47 54 Week 25|-20 15 • 1 0 ' Brush Fallow m i HUH n i i i f l i H i i m i H u u H H i H i i i m i t H H i i 5 12 19 26 33 40 47 54 4 0 • 35- • 3 0 • 2 5 • 2 0 • 15 IO 5 Pasture (Cow) J U L _ 1 12 19 26 • M H H I M I H I I I I ! H I H I l i f t H U H II M i l 26 33 40 47 54 J Sugarcane m i n i i i n i H i i t i i M i n i m u m 33 40 47 54 Figure 7-18. Relative weekly d i s t r i b u t i o n of labour between the different agroecosystems on Farm 382, San Juan Sur. • Nixed Garden • Root Garden Sugarcane • Pasture CHorse) • Planta i n/ Yuca • Pasture CCow) • Brush Fallow I Coffee Week j_j to VO 130 harvest period. The average weekly input was considerably less (about 60 hours; Figure 7-17). Except during certain periods, the weekly labour was divided between three to four of the eight agroecosystems on the farm with the coffee system absorbing the majority of the labour (Figure 7-18) throughout the period of the study. This was similar to the other two farms from this area and reflected the influence of climate on the pattern of flowering and fruiting of coffee. Rather than a short coffee harvest period of two or three months, the harvest in this area often extended six to eight months. The family i s close-knit but active in community af f a i r s . Both Don Francisco and his wife participate on different committees related to the local grade school, road maintenance and community sports. Livestock played an integral role on this farm. The pasture closest to the home was used principally for a cow and two calves, while the pasture near the coffee was used for the family's three horses. Within the mixed garden, the family raises pigs, bees, chickens, rabbits and tepezquintle (Agouti paca; a large rodent native to tropical America). 7.2 Summary and Conclusions The farms and the agroecosystems discussed above are representative of small farms described in Chapter 4. Similar farming systems in the TPWF,T are described in studies by Sellers (1976) and Lagemann and Heuveldop (1983). Other studies, such as Jones et al.'s (C.A.T.I.E. 1982) farming system survey of Hojancha, and Lemckert and Campos' (1981) small-farm survey, indicate similar ranges of variation for the TDF l i f e zone. Every farming system is unique, as is each mixed garden. The "average" or "typical" farm i s a useful device for determining regional questions, lik e which crops are most important or what technologies are most prevalent. However, implementation of programs aimed at improving farming systems w i l l need to deal with the uniqueness of the individual farms or mixed gardens. These six case studies present some of the range of variation in both the overall farming systems and in mixed gardens. 131 Sampling and describing this diversity gives a more representative picture of the challenges, the problems and the opportunities. Similarities exist between the farms selected in both l i f e zones. One farm (Farm 221 (TDF) and Farm 301 (TPWF,T)) in each l i f e zone represents a case of a resource poor farmer. Farm 303 (TDF) and Farm 302 (TPWF,T) both manage livestock to varying degrees. Credit was used by two of the case studies in both locations. A similar range in farm sizes exists in both of the two areas. These parallels between the Pitahaya TDF and the San Juan Sur (TPWF,T) situations thus provide a general basis for a comparative analysis. The similarities between the farms are more outstanding because of some of the differences that exist. Climate and other ecological factors provide the basis for differences in crops. Socio-economic conditions and access to land lead to other differences, such as the fragmented nature of small farms in San Juan Sur and the single unit nature of the Pitahaya farms. A l l the farmers were experienced, though they varied as to how much formal schooling each had. A l l could read and write and had radios and/or televisions. A few, such as Don Miguel Badilla (TDF) and Don Francisco Bermudez (TPWF,T), emphasized diversity in their farming systems. Some, like Don Pedro Perez (TDF) and Don Alvaro Navarro (TPWF,T), were ambitious, with very definite goals. Others, such as Don Jorge Obando (TDF) and Don Bolivar Torres (TPWF,T), were too resource poor to pursue their ambitions. The farming systems studied in both l i f e zones were complex inspite of their relative small size. Even the two examples of resource-poor farmers manage systems of considerable complexity. This complexity was expressed in the variety and type of agroecosystems managed. 132 CHAPTER 8 THE MIXED GARDEN REVISITED: MIXED GARDEN ECOLOGICAL PROFILES IN TWO CONTRASTING LIFE ZONES 8.0 Introduction The economic performance of an agroecosystem is the result of the " f i t " between ecological structure, management practices and the particular environment. Ecological structure embodies more than just form but also the dynamics of the agroecosystem. Structure in this context can be cla s s i f i e d as annual, perennial, or mixed. The important differences are the degree of permanence and the physical form. The degree of permanence of an agroecosystem determines the relationship between the plant component and the c r i t i c a l s o i l resource. In annual agroecosystems this relationship tends to be characterized by a phase of intense plant growth and s o i l nutrient demand followed by harvest and nutrient removal. Such structures either involve heavy cultural energy subsidies or periodic fallowing of the land, as in shifting agriculture. Perennial agroecosystems, on the other hand, establish an ongoing dynamic relationship with the s o i l , with only periodic partial nutrient exports. The physical form of an agroecosystem determines both the intensity of the plant-soil relationship and the system's a b i l i t y to effectively use other resources. In this context, physical form involves spacing, species mix and plant height factors. The following ecological profiles of the six mixed gardens studied provide an insight into the nature and character of these systems. A variety of questions were addressed, including hypothesis three: "regardless of environment, the mixed garden has a higher cultural energy benefit-cost ratio than conventional monoculture cropping systems." Several factors, including management practices, are presented. These factors describe the above-ground aspects of the mixed garden, the 133 s o i l , and root environment, the use and management of animals, and the energy benefit-cost relationship. . 8.1 Mixed Garden Design To the extent that "design" i s considered a conscious act, i t can be argued that mixed gardens are nothing more than random assemblages of plants. In fact, early European visitors to Java mistakenly c l a s s i f i e d indigenous mixed gardens as natural vegetation (Terra 1953; 1954). Much of this impression i s a result of a cultural perspective peculiar to the European heritage, shaped by the influence of the church and the sc i e n t i f i c revolution (White, Jr. 1969). Tropical mixed gardens are certainly at the opposite end of the spectrum in comparison to the order and precision found in the gardens around the palace of Versailles, in France, for example. These palace gardens are the product of a very conscious effort to demonstrate a control over Nature and to entertain. Tropical mixed gardens, in contrast, tend to evolve through a process that combines conscious decision, cultural dictates, intuition and chance. These gardens are pragmatic attempts to use available land, though they are not lacking in their own aesthetic values. Mixed gardens may, however, evolve into something akin to "palace" gardens (Kimber 1973). Several Figures (Figures 8-1 to 8-12) are presented that characterize the horizontal and vertical organization of the six mixed garden studied. It i s already clear from the data presented in Chapter 5 that each mixed garden i s unique. The data, as characterized in Figures 8-1 to 8-12, do not dispute this. They do, however, show some differences between the TDF and TPWFT l i f e zones. One important difference i s in the general height of mixed garden tees. The Pitahayan (TDF) gardens have 12, 9 and 7 trees over 10 meters in height, respectively. In San Juan Sur only one garden has three trees over 10 meters in height, while each of the other two had only one of this size. Pitahayan mixed gardens also tend to have 134 r igure 8 - 1 . P l a n o f Farm 2 2 1 ' a m i x e d g a r d e n ( P i t a h a y a ) , s h o w i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n and r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n * o f s p e c i e s . • t • • S W V i c i o S A N t T A R i o HolAS( E.TC •<3 K\ONTAC>0 GAi.tR.oNci i . L o r i * \ 0 ? L O 5m4/ O •PUATAFOCMt Oi . fcDtlNA CASA CAS A ^C7-- — CASA C A S A i i u • .« • "bfrT Figure fl-3. Plan of Farm 226'a mixed garden (Pitahaya), showing organization and relative locations of species. £5T0HftlJE. L. J A <5ALlWNCiu.o| 80DECA E ft L_ ^1 5m • U) " o> F i g u r e 8-4. V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e o f Farm 2 2 6 ' a m i x e d g a r d e n , s h o w i n g a tem and c a n o p y d l m e n a l o n a . 5m 0 OJ F i g u r e 8 - 6 . V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e of Farm 303'• mixed garden, ehowing etera and canopy dimension*). 140 r i g u r . 8 - 8 . V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e o f Farm 300', m i x e d g a r d e n , . h o w i n a •cem and c a n o p y d i m e n s i o n s . F i g u r e 8-9. P l a n o f Farm 3 0 1 ' 9 m i x e d g a r d e n (San J u a n S u r ) , s h o w i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n and r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s o f s p e c i e s . 51 Rl/ IClO 5m-C A F E • r v\"«yx cos <*. 2 6 X 0 5m f i g u r e 8-10. V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e of Farm 3 0 1 ' a mined garden, showing •tee and canopy dimensions. F i g u r e 8-11. P l a n o f Farm 3 0 2 ' a m i x e d g a r d e n (San J u a n 9 u r ) , s h o w i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n and r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n s o f s p e c i e s . F i g u r e 8 - 1 2 . V e r t i c a l p r o f i l e o f Farm 3 0 2 ' a m i x e d g a r d e n , s h o w i n g a tem and c a n o p y d i m e n s i o n s . 146 more trees. Similar structure and organization has been described for Costa Rican gardens (Wagner 1958; Maffioli and Holle 1982), Mexican gardens (Allison 1983; Ewel et a l . 1982), and for gardens in Puerto Rico and Martinique (Kimber 1966; 1978). Published descriptions from Africa (Asore et a l . 1985; Okigbo 1985) and from Asia (Sommers 1978; Abdoellah 1985), though similar, tend to show more organization and vertical s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . A c r i t i c a l difference between the Latin American situation and that in Africa and Asia i s that farmers in these latter regions are much more land-poor. Thus, in these situations, greater pressure exists to maximize land usage. 8.2 Species Richness and Distribution A l i s t of species found in mixed gardens i s given in Table 8-1. This Table shows the presence or absence of a particular species for each of six gardens studied. Summarized in Table 8-2 we can see that from just these six gardens a l i s t of 70 species (excluding purely ornamental plants and weeds) was obtained. Similar diversity i s found for mixed gardens elsewhere (Allison 1982; Kimber 1966, 1976; Brierley 1985; Fernandes et a l . 1985). Thirty percent of the 70 species are common to both ecological l i f e zones. Nineteen species were only found in Pitahaya, while 28 species were unique to San Juan Sur. Fifty-one percent of the species found were single occurrences — found on only one of the six farms. These data show San Juan Sur (TPWF,T) to be more diverse and with a tendency for farms to share more species in common (44% vs 33% for Pitahaya). This fact contrasts with previous data (Section 8.1) which shows Pitahayan gardens to be structurally more complex than San Juan Sur gardens. 147 Table 8-1. Mixed garden species found i n the gardens of case study farms i n Pitahaya de Puntarenas and San Juan Sur de Turrialba. F A R M S Costa Rican Common Name* P i t a h a y a 221 226 303 a n 300 J u a n 301 S u 302 Aguacate Albahaca Araucaria Arracache Ayote Banano Bejuco de Mora Cafe Caimito Camote Cana de Azucar Cas Chayote Chile Picante Cipres Ciruela Coco Cojombre Culantro Coyote Durazno F r a i l e c i l l o Fruta de Pan Gandul/Frijol de Palo Gavilana/Capitana Guacimo Guanabana Guanacaste Guayaba Guava Hierba Buena Hiqueron Huanilama Itabo Jicaro Jocote Limon Acido Limon Dulce Limon mandarina Macadamia Maiz Mamon Mandarina Mango x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * See Appendix 10 for english names and l a t i n binomials. 148 Table 8-1. Continued F A R M S Costa Rican Common Name* P i t a h a y a 221 226 303 S a n 300 J u a n 301 S u r 302 Manzana de Agua Maranon Morera Name Naranja Agria Naranja Dulce Naranjillo Nispero Nispero del Japon Olosapo Oregano Papaya Pejibaye Pina Platano Poro Sapote Saragundi Sonzapote Tamarindo Tiguisgue Tomate Toreta Toronja Yuca Zacate Limon x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I 149 Table 8-2. Summary of the total number and distribution of mixed garden species both within and between ecological l i f e zones. Factor Pitahaya San Juan Sur Combined Total Species 40(57)1 50(71) 70 Per Farm 10,-28,-20 34;21;27 Unique Species 19(28) 28(42) W/in Life Zone Shared Species 2 13(33) 21(44) Between Li f e Zone Shared Species 20(29) Single Occurrence Species 3 36(51) F i g u r e s i n b r a c k e t s a r e p e r c e n t a g e s . i . e . , s p e c i e s f o u n d o n 2 o r 3 o f t h e 3 f a r m s . i . e . , s p e c i e s o n l y f o u n d o n o n e o f t h e 6 f a r m s . Leaf area index (LAI), patchiness and percent cover are given in Table 8-3. LAI in both l i f e zones is quite low compared to average values (3.2-4.5) reported for Mexican mixed gardens (Ewel et a l . 1982; Allison 1983). Table 8-3. Species richness and leaf parameters for six mixed gardens distributed between two l i f e zones. LIFE No. OF PATCHINESS COVER ZONE FARM SPECIES LAI (S 2 X"1 OF LAI) m 221 8 1.47 + 1.14 0.83 55 1 D 1? 226 17 0.81 + 0.84 0.84 45 r 303 21 1.03 + 1.03 1.03 51 T T> 300 28 3.66 + 1.66 0.75 84 IT W 301 14 2.31 + 1.35 0.79 78 £ T 302 18 1.79 + 1.01 0.57 70 1 C a l c u l a t e d a s t h e n u m b e r o f L A I p o i n t ! s w h e r e L A I > 0 , d i v i d e d b y 1 0 0 ( t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f s a m p l e p o i n t s ) . Canopy patchiness, calculated as the ratio of estimated LAI 150 variance to mean LAI (Ewel et a l . 1982) is similarly low compared to Mexican values. Garden patchiness was greater in the Pitahayan gardens though these gardens had a lower LAI. Cover, calculated as the number of LAI sample points where LAI>0, divided by 100 (number of sample points), was greater in San Juan Sur gardens. These patchiness and cover data contrast with Allison's (1983) Mexican data. Her gardens had between 85 and 100 percent cover and a mean patchiness of 1.66 to 2.17. The apparent influence of ecological l i f e zone was also evident in Allison's data as i t i s here. The vertical distribution of leaf area for the six mixed gardens i s shown in Figure 8-13. The different patterns of distribution reinforces the individuality of each garden, except for gardens 221 and 226 in Pitahaya which were very similar, their main difference being the abundance of tiquisque (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) and mango seedlings i n the 0-25 cm height class of garden 221. Garden 303, also in Pitahaya, shows a markedly different pattern. This i s a large mixed garden with a low tree density, and a much greater herb (0-25 cm) component. In San Juan Sur gardens, 300 stands out both for i t s absolute leaf area and i t s vertical distribution. This is a garden which has evolved out of a coffee f i e l d and s t i l l retains an important commercial aspect. The coffee dominated the 0-2 m height class and was responsible for the large leaf area in this stratum. The least developed of the six gardens, the structure of garden 301 reflects a low tree density. Lacking control from shade or machete, a significant amount of measured leaf area i s due to weeds. Garden 302 i s relatively small but with a high plant density. A l l six vertical profiles share the characteristic of a strong vertical aspect to leaf area distribution. This trend i s echoed by Ewel et al.'s (1982) results from Mexico. Leaf area results from the presence of several species and i s generally not dominated by any one in particular. Figure 8-13 a-f Ue r t i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of leaf area in s i x mixed gardens. Diagrams are based on the mean of 180 measurements per s i t e . Pitahaya - Farm 221 Figure 8-13a. Cas Pi pa Ccoco) Others Ma ngo T iquisque Roble Sabana Omapola Oguacate llamon 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 Leaf Area • Pitahaya - Farm 226 Figure 8-13b. I I =F=—I 1 1 1 1 8 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 Leaf Area • ftchiote • Banana • Cas • Guayaba • Limon fladero • Platano Bl P i pa (coco) 1 1 Others II Mango II Nispero Manzana B Naranja H e i h t San Juan Sur - Farm 380 Figure 8-13c. Aguacate Araucar ia Fruta de Pan Cafe Manzana Aqua Naranja Others Cipres M Ln L O H e i g h t 11 10 1 91 81 7 6 ] 5 4 3 2 i : 0 San Juan Sur - Farm 301 Figure 8-13d. 0.2 0.4 Grapefru it Nispero de Japon Cafe Others + 0.6 0.8 Leaf Area 1.2 1.4 1.6 ISI H e i g h t San Juan Sur - Farm 302 Figure 8-13e. + + Manzana flgua Naranja Nispero de Japon L imon Chayote Others am 0.25 0.3 Leaf Area 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 a Pitahaya - Farm 303 Figure 8-13f. Uejuco de mora Zacate y Hierbas Others Naranja Ma mon Mango Guac imo Hiqueron + + 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Leaf Area 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 157 8.3 Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) Optical density (optical density is the ratio of the log of PAR in the garden to the log of PAR above the canopy) of the six mixed garden canopies ranged from 0.91 (>15% transmission) to 1.12 (<9% transmission) (Table 8-4). These values are similar to Ewel et al.'s (1982) data for a Mexican mixed garden. The values are for ground level and, together with the generally high standard deviations associated with them, indicate that PAR i s s t i l l potentially favourable for some species at ground level. There is surprisingly l i t t l e difference in PAR between gardens inspite of the wide range of LAI values found (Table 8-3). Possible explanations for this could be the generally lower canopy of San Juan Sur garden, together with leaf optical characteristics, permitting greater light penetration (in the 400-700 nm range). Table 8-4. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) represented as percent transmission and optical density, for six mixed gardens distributed i n two contrasting l i f e zones. LIFE PERCENT OPTICAL ZONE FARM TRANSMISSION DENSITY 221 11.41 + 10.05 1.05 + 0.31 226 10.68 + 2.90 0.99 + 0.12 303 15.37 + 9.30 0.91 + 0.29 ALL 12.49+8.41 0.99+0.27 T 300 8.99 + 6.47 1.12 + 0.23 P 301 15.37 + 9.02 0.91 + 0.31 W 302 8.65 + 3.72 1.10 + 0.18 F T ALL 10.96 + 7.39 1.05 + 0.26 T D F 8.4 Climate Modification Everyone appreciates the shade of a convenient tree on a hot, humid afternoon. Trees, individually or in numbers, have the a b i l i t y to influence such environmental measures as relative humidity, a i r temperature and s o i l temperature (Geiger 1950; Pinker 1980). Though a more 158 adequate data set was not collected, the measurements made (Table 8-5) compare relative humidity, air temperature and s o i l temperature both on a grassy soccer f i e l d and in garden 226, Pitahaya. Values averaged 12, 13 and 14 percent lower in the mixed garden respectively for relative humidity, air temperature and s o i l temperature. Table 8 -5 . Comparative effect of mixed garden on three environmental measures, (n = 4 ) Relative Temperature Humidity Soil A i r Soccer Field 80.75 + 7.46 33.83 + 0.93 32.00 + 1.63 Mixed Garden1 71.03 + 1.89 29.00 + 0.83 27.75 + 2.06 1 Farm 226 Climate modification i s an important function of the mixed garden, particularly in the seasonally dry parts of Costa Rica. This aspect of the ecology of gardens has implications for health, comfort and energy use and i s an important area for future research. 8.5 Weed Growth The productivity of weeds is an index of the degree to which a mixed garden controls the plant environment. Control i s primarily exerted by shading. Productivity of weed populations over a six month period i s presented in Figures 8-14 and 8-15. Between-life zones differences are matters of quantity, with Pitahayan (TDF) gardens having five to 15 times production of weed biomass. The general pattern in both l i f e zones i s an accumulation of biomass between September (initiation of the study) and January (onset of dry season). The absolute values of weed biomass are small, with the exception of garden 303 where tree density was low, and for this reason biomass values are stated in terms of unit areas of 100 m2. Noteworthy are the results from garden 226, in which two treatments Figure 8-14. Annual productivity of weed populations in mixed gardens in Pitahaya. 226A sample plots open to poultry, while 226B plots were fenced off. Month Figure 8-15. Annual productivity of weed populations in mixed gardens in San Juan Sur. 160 were carried out. The main part of garden 226 was fenced with chicken wire and galvanized roofing to prevent about 20 chickens from escaping. The two treatments consisted of adjacent fenced and open sample plots. Line 226A of Figure 8-14 represents the open plot while 226B i s the fenced. Weed growth i s virtu a l l y n i l in open plots but i s quite considerable in the fenced plots. A l l six mixed gardens had chickens but only garden 226 confined them to a specific area of the garden. The difference in the impact of this practice on weed growth is obvious from a comparison of 226A with the other lines in Figures 8-14 and 8-15. Vegetable and herb gardens are rare on small farms and when present are invariably fenced to exclude chickens. Free-roaming chickens appear to be, together with shade, one of the important elements in garden weed control. 8.6 L i t t e r Production L i t t e r f a l l i s one of the avenues through which the plant component recycles nutrients and contributes to s o i l development. Average monthly l i t t e r f a l l for the six mixed gardens i s given in Figure 8-16. This figure shows the average l i t t e r f a l l for the three gardens in each l i f e zone (see Appendix 13 for individual summaries). Similar to the results for weed production, l i t t e r f a l l i s greater in the TDF l i f e zone, with three to seven times the biomass production of the TPWF,T zone. L i t t e r f a l l does, however, appear to have a more seasonal character in the TDF l i f e zone. Two peaks are evident, a lesser peak a couple of months into the dry season and a much higher one during the rainy season. The f i r s t peak results from a partial seasonal defoliation of some garden species (e.g., mango and cas (Psidium friedrich-sthalianum)). F r u i t f a l l , particularly, of mangos (average weight 400-500 gm), i s responsible for the second peak. In Pitahaya, many of the gardens, including the case studies, have mango varieties that produce inedible f r u i t and which are often l e f t to rot on the ground. These uncollected f r u i t have the effect of producing a dramatic increase in l i t t e r biomass Figure 8-16. Average monthly litterfall for mixed gardens during the 12 months of the case study. Pitahaya is situated in the TDF life zone, while San Juan Sur is in the TPWF.T life zone. Each curve is based on three gardens. 162 during the fruiting season. L i t t e r f a l l for San Juan Sur is quite evenly distributed throughout the year. This i s in keeping with a climate that does not experience a pronounced dry season. The trend towards greater l i t t e r f a l l during the last months of the study may be due to a general increase in r a i n f a l l . The years 1982 and 1983 were exceptionally dry for many areas of Costa Rica. 8.7 Soils A general description of the soils for both locations has been given above (Chapter 3). Specific s o i l analysis was undertaken for the mixed garden and one or more of the agroecosystems, where possible, on each farm. The result of these analyses are presented in Table 8-6. Individual farm data are given in Appendix 14. As expected from the earlier description of soils for the two areas, there are significant differences between specific s o i l components. Of particular note i s the difference in organic matter (OM) and nitrogen. San Juan Sur garden soils averaged 7.0 percent OM compared to Pitahaya's 2.8 percent. Organic matter contents above two percent are common for tropical soils (Allison 1973). Total nitrogen was also about twice as great in San Juan Sur. The lower OM and nitrogen in Pitahaya, in spite of the greater monthly l i t t e r f a l l , i s thought to be due to higher decomposition rates. Higher s o i l and air temperatures and relative humidity, plus sandy soils, provide conditions in Pitahaya that are ideal for rapid decomposition. Available phosphorus was below recommended range of 20 mg/ml (Diaz-Romeu & Hunter 1978) for four of the gardens. Calcium was also deficient in a l l San Juan Sur gardens. However, overall productivity in gardens with s o i l nutrient deficiencies did not appear to be impaired. The phosphorus and calcium deficiencies may affect certain species more than others. Comparison of soils from the mixed gardens with those taken from 163 Table 8-6. Summary of s o i l analysis for three mixed gardens each i n two contrasting l i f e zones of Costa Rica. Li f e Soil Organic Zone Sample pH* Matter* N* P K* Ca* Mg mean 6.4 2.8 0.2 19.0 0.9 16.0 3.9 0-5 cm s.d. (0.3) (0.5) (0) (25.4) (0.2) (1.7) (0.6 6.6 2.7 .1 30.8 .8 17.0 4.0 5-25 cm (.5) (.3) (0) (42.6) (.3) (3.7) .1 6.0 7.3 .4 20.2 .6 3.5 1.4 0-5 cm (.9) (2.2) (•1) (15.9) (.2) (2.7) .9 TPWF,T 5.6 7.1 .4 9.8 .6 2.1 1.1 5-25 cm (.9) (2.0) (.1) (3.6) (.4) (2.1) 1.3 Between l i f e zone samples s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant at P < .05. 164 pasture, rice f i e l d and a plantain planting showed no s t a t i s t i c a l difference for any of the measured variables. This i s surprising, particularly in relation to the rice f i e l d u n t i l we consider that this was an area used for multiple cropping, with both wet and dry season crop combinations. Both the pasture and the plantain provide permanent ground cover. In the case of pasture, animal manure from cattle and horses serves as a source of f e r t i l i z e r . Commercial f e r t i l i z e r s were used for the plantain to maintain f e r t i l i t y . 8.8 Roots Above-ground biomass i s a commonly-used parameter with which to characterize ecosystems. Below-ground measures are d i f f i c u l t to obtain, but there i s a growing consensus that they are equally important to the above-ground (Berish 1985). Root area index (RAI) (Table 8-7) and root biomass (Figures 8-17 and 8-18) were sampled to characterize this aspect o f mixed gardens. RAI is the counterpart to LAI, measuring the relative root surface area per unit area of ground. No significant differences existed between-or within-life zones. Overall, RAI was greater in the 5-25 cm sample depth than in the upper 5 cm in both l i f e zones. Root biomass, according to sampling depth, is given in Figure 8-18. Except for one garden in Pitahaya, root biomass i s concentrated in the 5-25 cm depth. This result accords with Ewel et al.'s (1982) result for a Mexican mixed garden. However, in sampling seven other ecosystems, Ewel et a l . found most roots in the 0-5 cm depth. These other ecosystems were either monocultures (e.g., sweet potato, maize, Gmelina), comparatively simple (shaded coffee, shaded cacao) or very young (succession, mimic of succession). Average total root biomass ranged from 650-4100 gm/m2; Ewel et a l . measured 300 gm/m2 for their garden. The higher average values reported here are accompanied by large standard deviations. However, in the absence of other reported data i t i s d i f f i c u l t to judge how this study's data compares with others. Table 8-7. Root area index (RAI) (square meters per square meter) with standard deviations. No significant differences exist between or within l i f e zones. DIAMETER CLASSES (Combined Root LIFE ZONE FARM DEPTH <1 mm 1 - 2 mm 2 - 5 mm Diam. Classes) 221 0-5 0.50 + 0.42 1.72 + 1.15 0.73 + 0.85 0.98 + 1.00 Tropical 5-25 1.83 + 0.93 4.13 + 1.70 2.80 + 1.27 2.92 + 1.63 Dry 226 0-5 0.46 + 0.82 0.47 + 0.49 0.38 + 0.85 0.44 + 0.74 5-25 2.39 + 1.33 2.16 + 2.14 0.98 + 1.21 1.84 + 1.73 Forest 303 0-5 0.43 + 0.39 11.67 + 26.93 0.05 + 0.85 4.05 + 16.46 5-25 2.85 + 2.46 1.92 + 1.49 0.88 + 0.98 1.88 + 1.93 300 0-5 12.29 + 25.25 1.63 + 0.83 0.72 + 0.92 4.88 + 15.52 Tropical 5-25 0.76 + 0.75 1.07 + 0.91 1.79 + 0.88 1.21 + 0.95 Premontane Wet 301 0-5 1.53 + 0.78 1.47 + 1.52 0.06 + 0.14 1.02 + 1.20 Forest, 5-25 1.81 + 0.81 2.60 + 1.87 0.91 + 0.93 1.78 + 1.47 Transition • to Basal 302 0-5 0.59 + 0.54 2.04 + 2.69 0.00 + 0.00 0.88 + 1.80 5-25 22.10 + 41.43 3.35 + 3.47 2.52 + 0.70 8.82 + 25.80 Figure 8-17. Rootmass (gm/m2) for the case study gardens according to root diameter class; gardens f - 3 are from Pitahaya and 4 - 6 from San Juan Sur Sampling depth was 25 cm. Figure 8-16. Rootmass (gm/m2) for the case study gardens according to sampling depth; 1 - 3 are from Pitahaya, 4 - 6 from San Juan Sur. 5000 T 4000 3000 - -2000-1000-5000 -r 4000 -3000 -2000-1000-167 Figure 8-16 shows root biomass as distributed according to root diameter. More than Table 8-7 or Figure 8-17/ this presentation shows the uniqueness of each garden, as reflected in the below-ground environment. 8 . 9 Management Practices Management i s the ecological factor which distinguishes agro-ecosystems from natural ecosystems. Management practices observed in the six mixed gardens are summarized in Table 8-8. Sixteen different practices were observed, of which animal husbandry, plant diversity, pruning, selective planting and sweeping appear to be the most important. Animal husbandry, particularly poultry and pig keeping, restricts other potential practices (e.g., vegetable or herb gardening). As indicated in Section 8.5, on weed productivity, poultry do have a positive effect on weed control. Common practice i s to allow poultry to roam and forage freely and, to a much lesser extent, the same is true for pigs. A l l six farms in this study kept chickens and a l l but one allowed them to roam freely. The exception in this case did allow the chickens out in the afternoon for an hour or so at which time they had unrestricted movement. Three of the farms raised pigs, generally only one or two at a time. In each case, pigs were kept penned. Deliberate maintainance of plant diversity was a common practice in a l l six gardens, as evidenced by data already presented above. The degree of diversity varied and seemed linked both to the particular l i f e zone and interests of the farmer. This practice resulted in a vertical s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of l i f e forms which may enhance plant use of environmental resources (Ewel et a l . 1982; Christanty 1985). Plant diversity, without use of pesticides, ensures a diversity of insect forms and a measure of biological control of pests ( A l t i e r i 1985). More than any other practice, maintainance of plant diversity distinguishes the mixed garden from other agroecosystems. Pruning was another practice observed in a l l six gardens. Generally, trees were pruned of lower branches to permit easier access or removal of 168 Table 8-8. Management practices observed i n the mixed gardens of the six fanning system case studies. F A R M S Management P i t a h a y a S a n J u a n S u r Practice 221 226 303 | 300 301 302 Animal Husbandry * bees X X chickens f p/f f f f f cows X X pigs P p p rabbits X other X Composting X Fencing X F e r t i l i z e r X Grafting X Grazing X Herb Garden X X Pest Management X Plant Diversity X X X X X X Pruning X X X X X X Refuse Burning X X X Selective Planting X X X X X Soil Import X Sweeping X X X X X X Vegetable Garden X Weed Control X X X * f = free-roaming; p = penned damaged branches. In a l l cases, prunings were used as firewood. Pruning to enhance production was not observed. Selective planting was practised by five of the farmers. This practice involved a conscious decision to leave certain existing plants or to plant others. In some cases (as with mangos and avocados), this practice has not always rewarded the farmer. This latter situation appears 169 to be mostly due to insufficient knowledge of a given species' biology or of agronomic techniques, such as grafting. Sweeping was a universal practice and was usually part of the daily routine of the farmer's wife. The purpose of sweeping was to keep a certain area around the house free of vegetation and l i t t e r that might harbour snakes or rats. The area of the garden swept varied according to the size of the garden. Sweepings were either deposited in piles and burned or in pits and composted. Refuse burning was common in Pitahaya where there i s no municipal garbage collection, but was not observed in San Juan Sur where garbage was collected. Both refuse burning and composting result in recycling of nutrients within the garden, although the distribution was not always the most efficient in terms of plant productivity. Garbage collection of household wastes, to the extent that organic matter was removed, resulted in the non-productive export of nutrients. Together with the other ecological factors, management gives form and direction to the mixed garden. Unlike commercial agroecosystems, particularly monocultures, mixed gardens "evolve" rather than develop according to a pre-determined plan. 8.10 Cultural Energy Use A l l biological entities, no matter the level of integration (e.g., the c e l l , a complex organism, an ecosystem), are processors of energy. The efficiency with which energy can be processed is possibly the most fundamental measure of success. Certainly, a cursory look at different evolutionary strategies shows that the differences reflect variation in the acquisition and processing of energy. In the animal kingdom, this i s best exemplified by the different strategies of herbivores and carnivores. The division of plants into annuals and perennials i s another case in point. In the evolution of human cultural systems, energy has played no less a role. Traditional agricultural forms have evolved conservative, but 170 energy-efficient, technologies (Rappaport 1971; Nietschmann 1971; 1973) though individual farms may well be open to improvements in the use of that technology (Mijindadi & Norman 1984). Energy benefit-cost ratios for the different agroecosystems encountered in the study are given in Table 8-9. A summary of the relative cultural energy inputs i s given in Table 8-10. Details of the energy benefit-cost analysis are given in Appendix 16. In assessing the benefit-cost ratios given in Table 8-9, i t i s necessary to consider that two important variables are missing from the perennial systems surveyed. These two variables are stem biomass and annual stem biomass increment. Measurement of these two factors was not possible when the study was carried out because of the destruction nature of biomass sampling techniques. However, i f a value of 1000 kg i s assumed for tree-stem biomass for each of the mixed gardens, a basis i s established for discussing the effect of this variable on energy benefit-cost ratios. Such a value is easily satisfied by the smallest of the gardens in the study and far exceeded by at least four of the gardens. Tree-stem biomass represents both a capital stock, in economic terms, and an energy reservoir. Annual additions are made to this reservoir and, at times, withdrawals are also made. This characteristic of perennial systems distinguishes them from annual systems. Consequently, i t i s essential to account for the implications of this difference. Thirteen different agroecosystems were encountered in the study, some of which were found on more then one farm. The energy benefit-cost ratios shown in Table 8-9 indicate the typical v a r i a b i l i t y that has been found with the other variables presented in this study. A Kruskal-Wallis test (0.05 level of confidence) indicates a significant s t a t i s t i c a l difference between the energy benefit-cost ratios when the agroecosystems are grouped into annual or perennial systems. When tree stem biomass i s ignored, the mixed garden i s not particularly outstanding in comparison to even some of the annual 171 Table 8-9. Summary of the energy benefit-cost ratios for the different agroecosystems found on the case study farms. The numbers i n brackets are the equivalent ratios when the energy store of a metric ton of tree stem biomass i s included i n the calculation. F A R M S Pitahaya San Juan Sur Agroecosystem 221 226 303 * 300 301 302 mixed garden 1.03 .00 .34 21.20 .02 .15 (17318) (57) (10055) (6632) (2490) (4493) f r u i t orchard 91.76 13.41 maize 2.44 plantain .00 rice/maiz/pipian/beans .00 papaya/soursop . 44 pasture 1.94 2.74 rice 1 .00 rice 2 .00 coffee 1 20.93 3.38 .53 coffee 2 5.87 9.90 coffee 3 7.48 18.95 root garden .91 .03 4.20 horse pasture - Insufficient data for analysis. plantain & yuca .33 brush fallow - Insufficient data for analysis. sugarcane .63 Notes: The zero value for the ratio of Farm 226's mixed garden i s due to round-off error; the actual value is 0.001. The differences between the multiple entries for coffee and rice include location, management, and for the coffee, the mix of species used for shade. Table 8-10. Ratios of cultural energy inputs between different agroecosystems and the six case study mixed gardens. Values i n brackets represent size of planted areas i n hectares. Cultural Mixed Gardens Energy Input 221 226 303 300 301 302 Agroecosystem (Kcal/ha) (0.11) (0.11) (0.7) (0 .4 ) (0.05) (0.05) fr u i t orchard (1.0) 136428 .08 .00 .29 .11 .01 .01 maize (0.7) 1625 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 plantain (1.46) 2222961867 1298.12 4.25 4796.54 1802.21 84.86 157.93 rice/maize/pipian/beans (2.1) 4738621067 2767.17 9.05 10224.63 3841.71 180.89 336.66 papaya/soursop (0.5) 25716 .02 .00 .06 .02 .00 .00 pasture (8.5) 46778 .03 .00 .10 .04 .00 .00 fru i t orchard (1.4) 25628 .01 .00 .06 .02 .00 .00 rice 1 (5.0) 1769003632 1033.03 3.38 3817.02 1434.17 67.53 125.68 rice 2 (4.0) 954197387 557.21 1.82 2058.89 773.59 36.42 67.79 coffee 1 (0.3) 56854 .03 .00 .12 .05 .00 .00 coffee 2 (0.4) 3493492 2.04 .01 7.54 2.83 .13 .25 coffee 3 (0.7) 2246310 1.31 .00 4.85 1.82 .09 .16 root garden (0.4) 101140 .06 .00 .22 .08 .00 .01 coffee 4 (0.25) 25680 .01 .00 .06 .02 .00 .00 coffee 5 (0.75) 554253 .32 .00 1.20 .45 .02 .04 sugarcane (0.25) 5514537 3.22 .01 11.90 4.47 .21 .39 root garden 2 (?) N/A .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 coffee 6 (3.75) 5897512 3.44 .01 12.73 4.78 .23 .42 plantain/yuca (0.25) 486776 .28 .00 1.05 .39 .02 .03 cow pasture (2.75) 252918 .15 .00 .55 .21 .01 .02 root/vegetable garden (0.14) 457282 .27 .00 .99 .37 .02 .03 sugarcane 2 (0.75) 40490674 23.64 .08 87.37 32.83 1.55 2.88 173 agroecosystems. However, this situation changes dramatically when we consider even a modest amount of tree stem biomass (see figures in brackets in Table 8-9). Similar dramatic changes in energy benefit-cost ratios would also be evident for other perennial agroecosystems i f woody biomass was accounted for. It i s not easy to make comparisons between-life zones as the annual monoculture crops (eg., rice and maize) were found only in the TOF zone, while a perennial crop, coffee, dominates the TPWF,T zone. Clearly, the more that agrochemicals or petroleum derivatives come to play in crop production the less favourable the energy benefit-cost ratios become. This i s evident from those agroecosystems that are intensively managed (eg., rice, plantain, sugarcane, coffee). The ratios of cultural energy inputs (Table 8-10) between different agroecosystems and the mixed gardens underscores the energy benefit-cost results. Four systems stand out for their energy consumption: the rice plantations, the mixed cropping of rice and maize followed with maize, pipian and beans, and the plantain plantation. Each of these consumes between 2 to 10,000 times the amount of cultural energy, primarily from petroleum products, as the mixed gardens. Intensive coffee and sugarcane production i s up to 87 times more energy consuming then the mixed gardens. These findings support the hypothesis (Hypothesis 3) that the mixed garden has a higher energy benefit-cost ratio than commercial cropping systems. It is important to recognize that this situation arises because there are essentially two components to perennial crop production. The f i r s t of these i s most obviously the f r u i t , seed or nuts produced. In addition, however, we also have the production of woody biomass that represents an immense store of energy. This latter production i s consciously recognized by farmers (Jones and Price 1985), and so has to be considered an integral part of the agroecosystem from a management perspective. 174 l 8.11 Discussion There has been considerable debate (Goodman 1975; see also Proc. 1st Int. Congr. Ecology [1974] for overview) over the role of complexity in ecosystems. Though the debate continues, the consensus among ecologists (Odum 1969; Kimmins 1988) is that i t adds s t a b i l i t y to a system, thereby increasing i t s a b i l i t y to persist. A l l ecosystems, whether agricultural or natural, face constant change due to var i a b i l i t y in daily, monthly or yearly environmental factors. The addition of socio-economic factors i s an added constraint to which agro-ecosystems must respond. An example of how agroecosystem complexity adds s t a b i l i t y to a farming system is the case of coffee managed without shade. Traditionally, coffee i s grown with shade trees which are periodically pruned to control the amount of shade. The degree of shade experienced by a coffee plant determines the demand the plant makes on s o i l nutrients. A coffee plant in f u l l sun has a very high nutrient demand. The v o l a t i l i t y of coffee prices for farmers, together with the high cost of f e r t i l i z e r s , produces a high risk decision environment. A farmer who uses shade can control his crop's nutrient demand and can reduce his costs by foregoing or restricting the use of commercial f e r t i l i z e r s . Reducing costs allows the farmer to survive a poor coffee-price market. The added ecosystem complexity due to incorporation of shade trees thus provides for long-term socio-economic st a b i l i t y . This fact has been well documented by Lagemann and Heuveldop (1983; also Heuveldop and Espinosa 1983) for coffee farms in the Puriscal area of Costa Rica. In their study, the multiple-use nature of the shade trees added yet another element of complexity to the coffee agroecosystem. The farmers in the case studies described above are experienced in managing complexity and, with the exception of our two resource-poor farmers, these farmers are successful. They manage complexity at different levels — at the farming system, cropping system and at the plant levels. The farming systems are a l l complex, multi-enterprise operations, 175 combining subsistence and commercial cropping. At the cropping or agroecosystem level, they manage monocultures, mixed cropping, and rotation systems. Shade trees, and even coffee plants, are managed from a multi-use perspective. Both shade trees and coffee plants produce firewood. Shade trees also produce f r u i t and, in the case of legumes, nitrogen for the s o i l (i.e., by nitrogen fixation and l i t t e r f a l l ) . Both climate and agricultural product-markets are factors in the type of cropping systems used in the two l i f e zones. Clearly, the TPWF,T l i f e zone offers higher net incomes for the small farmer. Coffee, as a perennial crop, has advantages over alternative annual crops. Establishment costs can be amortized over several years, unlike the situation for annual crops. These costs are even further reduced i f a farmer produces his own seedlings and uses family labour for planting. For coffee, the plants begin producing in their third year and may have a productive l i f e of 20 to 30 years. Management regimes are more flexible and adaptable to the differing personalities of farmers. In contrast, most commercial annual crops (e.g., rice, melon, beans, chayote, potatoes, vegetable crops) have management regimes that are s t r i c t l y controlled by the financing institution. Thus, perennials crops expose a farmer to less risk. Modern agricultural models require significant increases in energy consumption. Two effects can be attributed to this increased use of energy in agriculture. The most obvious and much touted i s the substantial increase in agricultural yields. Depending upon the crop, yields may be two, three, or even 10 times those produced by traditional technologies. The other effect, much less discussed, i s that modern agriculture i s much less energy efficient (Odum & Odum 1981; Pimentel et a l . 1983). Changing technology always results in a series of trade-offs (Schahczenski 1984). Many of the trade-offs, however, may not be immediately evident. Spiraling economic costs in agricultural production, displacement of rural farming populations and increasing dependance upon outside (extra-176 regional, transnational, global) interests are some of the trade-offs that have increasingly come to dominate the lives of farmers both in the developed and developing countries. The energy that i s fueling modern agriculture i s primarily derived from the f i n i t e reservoir of petroleum and natural gas deposits. This energy source because of i t s limited supply and unequal geographic distribution i s the main reason for the growing costs of agricultural production. In addition, the by-products of this type of energy, in their many forms, have been implicated in potentially catastrophic changes to the global environment (Myers 1984). Consequently, agriculture in the future w i l l be forced to adapt; how, remains open to speculation. Agriculture in the tropics, in countries like Costa Rica, faces immediate problems because so much of the Gross National Product (GNP) i s presently diverted to purchase f o s s i l fuel derivatives (agrochemicals). One possible answer i s to look for agricultural models that are more energy ef f i c i e n t . As Ewel (1973) suggests: The key i s to look for energetically cheap feedback loops that can be used to recirculate forms of energy which have potentially large amplifier effects in the system of which they are a part. Perennial agroecosystems and mixed cropping systems, like the mixed garden, are examples where such feedback loops are found. Trenbath (1974) and others have been looking at mixed cropping (typical of traditional agriculture) and documenting the phenomenon of "over-yielding" for some time. Over-yielding describes the case where the combined product of a mixture i s greater then the yield from monocultures of the individual components of the mixture. Coffee plantations in Costa Rica often incorporate leguminous shade trees and associate timber species (e.g., the case of Erythrlna sp. and Cordia alliodora). The legume, in addition to nitrogen fixation, returns valuable nitrogen through l i t t e r f a l l . Associate timber species benefit the system by u t i l i z i n g excess f e r t i l i z e r and storing energy and capital for future use. 177 Perennial agricultural systems, with a few exceptions, have been largely ignored by researchers and agricultural planners for the fast gains offered by annual crops. The present study has addressed this situation. 8.12 Conclusions In this chapter I have addressed three hypotheses related to the main question of whether or not the tropical mixed garden, as i t exists in Costa Rica, i s adaptable to a more commercial role on small farms. From my study of the mixed garden and associated farming system I have reached the following conclusions. These conclusions are divided into two groups, those that address the hypotheses and those that relate to the study as a whole. 1. Resolution of Hypotheses The findings support the hypothesis (Hypothesis 3) that the mixed garden has a higher energy benefit-cost ratio than commercial cropping systems. The commercial cropping systems on the farms studied consumed between 9 to 10,000 times the amount of cultural energy as the mixed gardens. 2. General Conclusions a. Mixed gardens on small farms have the potential to contribute much more to the cash economy of the farm household. (I visited farm 302, in San Juan Sur, in September of 1987, at which time the farmer had three sows in his mixed garden, two with 16 piglets between them. According to the the farmer, he can s e l l each piglet for 3000 colones when they reach three to four months of age. This activity has significantly enhanced the cash contribution of the mixed garden to this farms income.) b. The vegetative component of the mixed garden has a minimal requirement for management input. c. Microclimate modification by mixed garden vegetation, both at 178 the household and village levels, is an c r i t i c a l factor affecting energy consumption and the quality of l i f e in the seasonally dry l i f e zones of Costa Rica, and consequently is an important focus for future research. 179 CHAPTER 9 FARMING AND AGROECOSYSTEM ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE 9.0 Introduction Chapters 7 and 8 have described six farming system case studies, with descriptions of the different households, the component agroecosystems and ecological profiles of the mixed garden. This section presents data which allow an economic comparison of the different farming systems, both within- and between-life zones. The discussion aims to identify the influence of the various different agroecosystems on the farm economy. The intent of this section i s not to enter into a detailed economic analysis of the individual farming systems or particular agroecosystems. Rather, the objective i s to establish the relative role of the mixed garden on different farming systems in terms of the economic l i f e of the individual farm household. On this basis, both hypothesis 4 (the output of the mixed garden can be improved) and hypothesis 5 (the mixed garden exists as a supplementary enterprise whose primary function i s to absorb excess farm labour potential) can be addressed. An economic analysis of the mixed garden must necessarily be inexact. Some of the benefits derived from the mixed garden are d i f f i c u l t to quantify because of the subjective nature of the "goods" (e.g., aesthetics and recreation). Other "goods" are complex and technically d i f f i c u l t and expensive to measure precisely (e.g., micro-climate modification). The assessment of economic performance is summarized in three tables. The f i r s t of these (Table 9-1) presents a comparison of farm income and expenses, while a second (Table 9-2) details net monthly cash flows. Relative economic performance of particular agroecosystems on particular farms i s given in a third table (Table 9-3). 180 9.1 Comparative farm income and expenses Comparisons of farm income and expenses are given in Table 9-1. F u l l details of the individual farm income and expenses are presented in Appendix 19. There are striking differences in total expenses and debt loads between farms in the two ecological l i f e zones. The total expenses of the two active Pitahayan farms are 10 times or more than those of San Juan Sur. A similar situation also applies to debt load, although the absolute magnitude of debt in either case is not great. Average net farm income (i.e., disposable income available for liv i n g expenses, land rent, principal repayment and savings) amongst the San Juan Sur farms was about the same as that of the farms from Pitahaya, although net income for the two active Pitahaya farming systems was about a third greater than that for the San Juan Sur farms. These differences reflect the inherent costs and production characteristics of perennial versus annual crops. Average preparation costs for rice production in the Pitahaya area were about 8,306 colones per hectare (SEPSA, 1982). Added to this are costly weed and pest control and harvest and transport costs. In comparison, established and productive coffee plantings have relatively modest control costs and harvest costs of about 13,000 colones per hectare. Variable expenses, such as liv i n g costs, are more or less equal for farming systems within a particular l i f e zone. However, in both l i f e zones sampled, one farming system stands out as an exception to this general case. In San Juan Sur, Farm 300 has liv i n g expenses about twice that of the other case studies. These higher expenses are due to the priority given to supporting the children's educational ambitions, which are reflected in greater family and liv i n g expenses (see Appendix 19d). The higher l i v i n g expenses for farm 226 reflect the fact that two households are being supported, unlike i t s neighbours. TABLE 9-1. Comparative farm income and expenses f o r farming systems i n the Pitahaya and San Juan Sur de Turrialba areas for 1983. Units are Costa Rican colones. L i f e Cash Other T o t a l Operating Debt T o t a l Net Zone Farm Receipts Income Income | Expenses Payments Expenses | Income 1 T D F F T 221 7,743.00 47,414.58 55,157.58 75.00 n/a 75.00 55,082.58 226 158,135.00 10,000.00 288,965.00 116,910.00 5,262.00 122,172.00 166,793.00 303 230,500.40 132,690.00 363,875.30 183,625.30 6,250.00 189,875.30 174,000.00 T 300 71,826.00 77,795.00 149,621.00 10,932.00 n/a 10,932.00 138,689.00 P W 301 68,235.50 44,313.50 112,549.00 8,193.50 560.00 8,753.50 103,795.50 302 137,227.01 6,250.00 141,527.01 22,039.90 81.75 22,121.65 119,405.36 i n c l u d e s d i s c r e t i o n a r y income a v a i l a b l e f o r l i v i n g expenses, land rent, p r i n c i p a l repayment and savings. 182 9.2 Cashflow budgets A comparative summary of cashflow budgets (ending cash balance) for the six farming systems i s found in Table 9-2. Graphic representation of this data, in Figures 9-1 and 9-2, emphasizes the trends. Detailed cashflow analyses are given in Appendix 21. Absolute values for the monthly ending cash balance are given in Table 9-2. However, trends are more readily apparent in Figures 9-1 and 9-2. Pitahaya farms show the greatest variation in income distribution. Farm 303 stands out from the two other farms with i t s def i c i t s for June to September and i t s large cash influx in October. Farm 226 has a positive monthly cash balance throughout the study period, with peaks in August and January. These peaks correspond with the rice harvest in August and the peak plantain harvest, combined with the pipian and watermelon harvest during the November to March period. For Farm 221, the pattern reflects the lack of productivity on the lands managed. Figure 9-1 shows a decidedly different cashflow picture for San Juan Sur. The involvement of a l l three farms in coffee leads to very similar cashflows, differing more in amount than in timing. Farm 302, being the largest of the three farming systems, shows the greatest cashflows, which peak in December. The next largest farm, Farm 300, has a very similar pattern differing only in the magnitude of the cashflows and in peaking in January rather than December. Cashflows for Farm 301, like Farm 221 in Pitahaya, are also small because of the size of the farm and the importance of having to work off-farm. The peak in March reflects income from the sugarcane harvest. Note that for coffee producers in the San Juan Sur and surrounding areas, the coffee harvest i s strongly influenced by the pattern of r a i n f a l l . In other areas the coffee harvest i s briefer and would lead to quite different trends in cashflow. Table 9-2. Comparative cash flow budgets (ending cash balance), with the percentage of t o t a l monthly income derived from the ««1 ™ H garden (values i n brackets). L i f e M O N T H Zone Farm Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 221' 8,715.71 2,336.50 1,789.00 2,379.25 2,552.50 3,579.50 3,111.75 1,540.15 20.40 2,186.77 4,572.14 8,277.84 10,415.71 T (0.67) (40.21) (3.97) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (45.43) (14.09) D 226' 24,059.00 5,980.00 11,132.00 16,463.00 28,145.00 45,216.00 29,833.00 20,742.00 36,663.00 36,200.00 41,767.00 34,499.00 24,059.00 (2.37) (1.66) (0) (0) (1.24) (0) (0) (0) (0) (7.44) (0) (0) F 303' 26,108.80 1,800.00 1,432.77 -9,159.22 -11,146.14 -17,499.06 -12,176.41 128,118.60 92,648.40 77,917.48 63,431.56 71,559.64 59,299.72 (3-60) (0) (21.54) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (22.14) (9.48) (0) 3001 26,780.45 5,890.00 3,420.00 15.00 - 55.00 2,255.00 7,161.00 19,531.00 30,746.00 38,585.00 45,386.45 43,896.45 38,780.45 T (0) (2.17) (1.61) (3.07) 1.68) (0) (8.27) (3.44) (0) (0) (0.85) (0) P W 301' 51,038.75 831.00 5,125.50 471.00 560.45 - 254.67 7,873.49 2,500.66 3,893.33 4,169.99 5,070.00 3,140.00 17,667.50 F (0.59) (0) (0) (0.13) (0) (10.25) (2.24) (2.02) (0) (0) (0) (0) T 302= 51,465.41 14,731.55 5,200.05 121.55 30,739.26 40,318.26 46,547.51 46,040.01 54,645.21 66,704.71 61,389.46 59,232.46 56,465.41 (0.16) (12.09) (1.55) (0.67) (0.49) (1.38) (0.80) (0.20) (0) (53.59) (50.97) (9.97) 1 R e c o r d f o r p e r i o d A p r i l '83 - M a r c h '84 ' R e c o r d f o r p e r i o d May '83 - A p r i l '84 00 Figure 9-1. Monthly distribution of net annual income for farming systems in San Juan Sur. 70000 T 60000 - -50000 - • Q 40000-0 I 0 30000-n e S 20000 • • Farm 300 • Farm 301 302 10000•• [Lfl, - , - ,n ,11 1 i -10000 J-A M J J A S O N D J F M Monthly Income Figure 9-2. Monthly distribution of net annual income for farming systems in Pitahaya. 140000 x 120000 100000 Q 80000 0 I 0 60000 n e S 40000 20000 •• -20000 J -• Farm 226 Farm 221 Farm 303 i A M J J A S O N D J F M Monthly Income 185 9 . 3 Relative Economic Performance of different agroecosystems Comparisons of the relative economic performance of agroecosystems, as indicated by benefit-cost ratios, for the different farming systems are given in Table 9-3. A number of assumptions are inherent in the benefit-cost ratios presented. These ratios were calculated from the reported inputs and outputs of materials and cash to each of the individual agroecosystems. The two most important assumptions made were the valuing of family labour at an opportunity cost of. 100 colones per 8-hour workday, and the costing of goods produced and consumed at their local r e t a i l value (Chibnik, 1978). An opportunity cost of 100 colones per 8-hour day reflects the wage paid to unskilled agricultural workers during the period of the study. This value i s actually an underestimate of the opportunity cost because i t does not include employer-paid benefits amounting to 34 percent. However, as benefits like social,security have both individual as well as family rates, inclusion of these benefits would grossly over-estimate the actual opportunity cost. An opportunity coBt for family labour of 100 colones per 8-hour workday is thus taken as the best estimate of the true opportunity cost. A detailed evaluation of the relative economic performance of individual agroecosystems on the different farms is given in Appendix 22. The commercial agroecosystems that are particularly noteworthy include: Aqroecosvstem Farm Location Mixed Fruit 221 Pitahaya Plantain 226 Pitahaya Rice/Maize/Melon 226 Pitahaya Rice (1 & 2) 303 Pitahaya Coffee/Mango 300 San Juan Sur Sugarcane 301 San Juan Sur Coffee 302 San Juan Sur Pasture (cow) 302 San Juan Sur Sugarcane 302 San Juan Sur Four factors are at work individually or in combination to set these commercial agroecosystems apart: Table 9-3. Comparison of the relative economic performance of agroecosystems, as indexed by benefit-costs ratios, on six farms divided between two contrasting l i f e zones. T R O P I C A L D R Y F O R E S T 2 2 1 2 2 6 3 0 3 Agroecosystem B--C Ratio Agroecosystem B—C Ratio Agroecosystem B-C Ratio Mixed Fruit 3. 98 Plantain 7.30 Pasture 0.96 Rice/Maiz 3. 65 Rice/Maiz/Pipian 1.50 Mixed Fruit 1.10 Mixed Garden 9. 71 (3.81) Papaya/Soursop 0.60 Rice 1 1.50 Rice/Melon/Plantain na Rice 2 1.30 Mixed Garden 5.30 (2.90) Mixed Garden 34.84 (3.40) T R O P I C A L P R E M O N T A N E W E T F O R E S T 3 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 2 Agroecosystem B-C Ratio Agroecosystem B-C Ratio Agroecosystem B-C Ratio Coffee/pejibaye 0. 93 Coffee 1 1.18 Coffee 2.45 Coffee/Avocado 1. 41 Coffee 2 1.04 Brush Fallow na Coffee/Mango 2. 13 Sugarcane 35.08 Pasture (cow) 3.32 Yuca/Chayote 0. 47 Coffee 3 0.32 Plantain/Yuca 0.34 Mixed Garden 4. 89 (1.21) Mixed Garden 4.67 (1.90) Pasture (horse) na Sugarcane 7.70 Root Garden 1.16 Mixed Garden 9. 18 (3.27) 1 187 A good local market is of primary importance to those agroecosystems producing rice, watermelon, pipian and plantain. Rice i s a staple throughout Central America and regional production i s below the level of self-sufficiency. As a result of a consistent demand, rice production i s thus a profitable, i f risky, venture. Melon production i s seasonal and i s not widespread. There i s a good local demand in the nearby urban center of Puntarenas, which makes this a p r o f i t -able crop. Local production of plantain, which i s harvested year round with seasonal peaks, i s not very great. However, demand for plantain, a common part of a family's morning or evening meal, i s steady, and so this crop provides for a regular income. A low labour requirement influences the success of plantain, and i s pivotal in the success of the mixed f r u i t and sugarcane systems. The mixed f r u i t planting on farm 221 consisted of mature coconut palms, mango and tamarind trees. These crops w i l l bear f r u i t under less than ideal conditions (e.g., with heavy weed growth) because of their competitive nature. Once growth begins after planting, sugarcane rapidly outgrows any weed competition, and once established requires l i t t l e care un t i l harvest time. Plantain provides a complete and dense shade cover which prevents weed growth. Maintenance of the plantation focuses on removal of excess suckers, the trunks of harvested plantain and diseased leaves. Although a low labour requirement i s a factor in coffee production and in the maintenance of the cow pasture, i t i s not the main factor. Size of the cultivation area, for coffee and pasture, i s the important variable producing a noteworthy benefit-cost ratio. Indicative of this importance i s a Pearson's r value of 0.72 when plantation size i s correlated with benefit-cost ratios. Together with size, a low stocking ratio plays an important role in the cow pasture. With just a cow and two calves, sufficient grazing i s available such that supplementary feeding i s not required. 188 Over-grazing i s also avoided because of the size of the pasture. 9.4 The Economic Performance of the Mixed Garden Already on record from data presented in Chapter 5 i s the fact that l i t t l e , i f any, agrochemicals are used in the mixed garden. This fact i s corroborated by the case studies. The cashflow record i s particularly revealing in this respect. Not only are the percentages of total income contributed by the mixed garden either n i l or very small but only in one case is there a regular monthly contribution. These contributions, however, represent income generated invariably with no economic input whatsoever to the mixed garden. Examining the detailed relative economic performance records (Appendix 22) shows that the one important input is unpaid family labour. With respect to family labour, particularly for farms 226, 301 and 303, a high percentage of this labour input consists in daily sweeping of the area immediately around the house. Thus, this work, usually done by the wife, does l i t t l e to enhance garden productivity. The primary purpose of sweeping is to keep the ground free of grasses and herbs which can provide habitat for snakes and rats. Observed garden management practices (Table 8-8) were neither regular nor part of a conscious plan on the part of the farmers. A study of the relative weekly labour inputs (Figures 7-3, 7-6, 7-9, 7-12, 7-15 and 7-18) reflect the irregular pattern of input. This pattern would be even more irregular, particularly for farms 226, 303 and 301, i f time spent sweeping were desegregated from total labour input. The productivity of these gardens appears attributable more to a particular plant assemblage's a b i l i t y to prosper in the situation than as a result of management intent. In fact, a number of counter-productive strategies are evident in garden management. Species and individuals are sometimes encouraged that are not f u l l y u t i l i z a b l e . An example of this in Pitahaya i s the tolerance of mango varieties that produce small and undesirable f r u i t . Though these trees provide important shade, f r u i t i s 189 allowed to f a l l to the ground and rot. These trees could be improved by grafting of preferred varieties. Another example, seen universally throughout Costa Rica, i s the case of the avocado. This i s a f r u i t in constant demand but one with a peculiar flowering biology in which the male and female flowers, within a variety, rarely open at the same time. As a consequence, within-variety pollination i s poor and i s remedied only by having trees of different varieties grown together. Ignorance of this results in many gardens with healthy but otherwise unfruitful avocado trees. Other practices, such as leaving trees to over-fruit, resulting in f r u i t of poorer quality, greater wastage, and a trend for trees to alternate between years of good and bad harvests were also observed. 9.5 Summary and Conclusions The above observations, together with the economic analysis, support the hypothesis that the output of the mixed garden could be greatly improved. These same observations suggest ways in which the mixed garden output could be enhanced. Some enhancements entail no additional costs or time, just the introduction of knowledge and certain s k i l l s (e.g., grafting and pruning). Other measures, such as the active use of compost or f e r t i l i z e r s and planting of selected stock, would bear an economic and additional labour cost. Why the mixed garden is not f u l l y managed to i t s apparent potential is not clear. Ignorance of plant biology or of necessary s k i l l s i s one obvious limitation to realizing potential garden productivity. Another important factor i s inherent in the statement of hypothesis five, which states that "the mixed garden exists as a supplementary enterprise whose primary function i s to absorb excess farm labour." This type of production relationship between the mixed garden and the other agroecosystems on the farm has been described by Harsh et a l . (1981). The economic and labour use analysis presented here supports this hypothesis. The trend for weekly labour to vary from zero input in one week to up to 40 hours in another, for example, is consistent with this type of 190 production relationship. The influence of the agricultural calendar for the other agroecosystems on the availability of family labour also supports this conclusion. Similarly, the pattern of cashflows from the mixed garden reflect the irregular attention given this agroecosystem. Given such a production relationship, i t follows naturally that the potential productivity of the mixed garden w i l l not be realized. On the contrary, however, i t must be remembered that these farming systems are complex, multi-enterprise operations. Thus, the farmers are constantly juggling their work p r i o r i t i e s . In this type of management environment the perennial component of some of the agroecosystems, including the mixed garden, introduces an element of f l e x i b i l i t y . Perennial systems, depending on their structure, have a stronger a b i l i t y to maintain themselves independent of management as the ecological profiles of the mixed garden demonstrate. Consequently, i t would be unwise to discount the mixed garden as an agroecosystem simply because i t can be described by one type of production relationship and not another. The economics of annual commercial crops is where i t s at due to vasts sums of money and research effort spent to accomplish this goal. Perennial cropping systems, like the mixed garden, have received v i r t u a l l y no attention in comparison. In this respect, I believe that the mixed garden, particularly in the tropics, represents an opportunity for the development of commercially and ecologically viable agroecosystems. Resolution of Hypotheses 1. The observations reported here for labour patterns and management practices, together with the economic analysis, support the hypothesis (Hypothesis 4) that the output of the mixed garden can be improved. 2. The economic and labour use analysis presented here supports the hypothesis (Hypothesis 5) that "the mixed garden exists as a supplementary enterprise whose primary function i s to absorb excess farm labour." 191 General Conclusions 1. Small farming systems are complex ecological and economic systems, and farmers are skilled in managing these systems. These s k i l l s are a valuable resource for future research and development of farming in developing countries. 2. Mixed gardens on small farms generally have a minor role in the cash economy of the farm household, contributing principally a variety of f r u i t s , and eggs and poultry for family consumption. 3. Mixed gardens on small farms have the potential to contribute much more to the cash economy of the farm household. (I visited farm 302, in San Juan Sur, in September of 1987, at which time the farmer had three sows in his mixed garden, two with 16 piglets between them. According to the the farmer, he can s e l l each piglet for 3000 colones when they reach three to four months of age. This activity has significantly enhanced the cash contribution of the mixed garden to this farm's income.) 4. Mixed gardens have the elements for a successful commercial cropping system but appear to lack essential motivation and a favourable market structure within which to develop. The most successful cash income earners among the case studies were mixed gardens integrating animal and f r u i t production. 192 CHAPTER 10 SIMULATION OF A MIXED GARDEN AGROFORESTRY SYSTEM 10.0 Introduction In the tropics, the reductionist approach of modern agricultural research has proven i t s e l f ineffective in achieving long-term goals, inspite of some short-term successes (Norman 1983). Some of the reasons for this and some of the responses have been discussed in earlier chapters of the thesis. The multi-enterprise, multi-cropping nature of many small farming systems in the tropics introduces more complexity than most reductionist approaches can handle. Lately, however, a number of researchers have risen to the challenge of this complexity (Ewel et a l . , 1982; Gliessman*,, 1978; 1979; Hart 1974; Bavappa and Jacob 1982) by developing ecosystem-level studies of cropping systems. Unfortunately, because of the expense of such studies, there have been few of them. In the absence of the necessary funding for f i e l d research at the ecosystem level, there are two alternatives: ignore the complexity or use available data and technology to make some f i r s t approximations about how complex systems function. The former approach leads nowhere, and so, while the latter has i t s risks and is controversial, i t i s our best hope in learning to deal with complexity. Thus, in this chapter I have taken data from the literature and my own research as the basis for designing and simulating a small farming system with a mixed garden agroforestry component. The purpose of this exercise is to address the main question underlying the thesis: the potential of the existing traditional mixed garden to be developed into a viable, but ecologically conservative, commercial agroecosystem. Evaluation of the simulation i s in terms of economic and energy inputs and outputs. 193 10.1 Model Structure and Assumptions As a framework for this simulation I have chosen to model my theoretical farming system on the basis of one of the case study farms in the Tropical Dry Forest zone of Pitahaya. The simulation looks at the economic potential and biomass energy accumulation of a commercially-oriented mixed garden at different stages over a period of 35 years. Data used for product pricing are for 1983, the simulation thus gives an indication of the potential of such a system, at these different stages, under the economic conditions prevailing in 1983. The simulation was developed in the form of a computer spreadsheet (SuperCalc4 (TM)) accounting-type model on an IBM XT computer. 10.1.1 Description of the Simulated Farming System The basic structure of the simulated farming system follows that of Farm 226 in Pitahaya (Table 10-1). Differences between the simulated and actual farm include a smaller overall farm size (i.e., 4 ha vs 5.5 ha), a scaled-up mixed garden and the inclusion of a livi n g fence agroecosystem around three sides of the garden. The plantain and rice agroecosystems have been scaled-down to one hectare each. Table 10-1. Description of the simulated farming system. Socio-economic component Agroecosystem component Family: Mixed Garden: (2 ha) - husband - f r u i t trees - wife — timber trees - teenaged son - herbs and roots - teenaged daughter - pigs - chickens Hired Help: Plantain: (1 ha) - 1 full-time peon Rice/maize/pipian: (1 ha) Living Fence (madero negro): (400 meters) 194 The socio-economic component of the farm i s based on a family of four, with two teenaged children. A family of this nature is not uncommon for Costa Rica, though i t i s smaller than the average (see Table 4-1). It i s assumed that both children are in school but are able to work two hours/day each on farm chores during the week and, on average;; four hours each on weekends. The farmer works full-time on the farm assisted by a fulltime farmhand (peon). The wife i s assumed to spend two hours per day working in the garden, primarily overseeing the feeding of the pigs and chickens. A maximum of 150.5 hours/week of family and hired labour are available i f needed. As with Farm 226, plantain i s the main commercial crop; additional income i s derived from the dry-season production of pipian and melon (cantaloupe). Rice, with i t s maize intercrop, i s produced for home consumption. The mixed garden i s designed to produce three types of commercial goods: f r u i t , timber and pigs. In addition, the mixed garden i s linked with the liv i n g fence agroecosystem of Madero Negro (Gliricidia sepium) via the use of foliage from fence prunings as supplementary pig feed and for compost. Sale of fr u i t production i s at the farm gate. Selling to third parties rather than direct at farmer markets brings lower prices but avoids the costs of transportation and extra handling of goods. A spoilage rate of 30% i s assumed and is incorporated into the calculation of product values. Spoiled f r u i t i s assumed to go to the pigs, chickens, home consumption or to the compost heap. Pig production is based upon the sale of 3-month old weaned piglets to individuals through word-of-mouth "advertising". It can also be assumed that the farmer se l l s a stud service to neighbours but this i s not taken into consideration in this simulation. A l l pig feed i s produced in the garden, supplemented from time to time from the other agroecosystems on the farm. 195 10.1.2 Description of the Simulated Mixed Garden The mixed garden, together with the liv i n g fence, i s composed of 14 principal species. These 14 species are lis t e d in Table 10-2 according to their Costa Rican, English and sci e n t i f i c names. In reality, there would probably be other incidental herb, root, medicinal and ornamental species, but these are not included in the simulation. A plan of the mixed garden showing the distribution of 12 of the 14 species is given in Figure 10-1. Not shown in Figure 10-1 i s the distribution of banana and papaya plants. The reason for not indicating locations for these latter two species i s that they are i n i t i a l l y planted at high densities around the fr u i t and timber seedlings. Densities are latter reduced as the tree seedlings develop, resulting in an irregular and unpredictable distribution. Also shown on the plan of the garden i s the farm household and the l i v i n g fence agroecosystem. Table 10-2. L i s t of English names and Latin Binomials for mixed garden species. Costa Rican English Common Name Common Name Latin Binomial Banano Banana Musa sapientum L. Cedro Amargo Spanish Cedar Cedrela mexicana Coco Coconut Cocos nucifera L. Guanabana Soursop Annona muricata L. Lim6n Acido Lime Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) Swingle Madero Negro N/A G l i r i c i d i a sepium (Jacq.) Steud. Mango Mango Mangifera indica L. Manzana de Agua Water Apple Eugenia malaccensis L. Maranon Cashew Anacardium occidentale L. Nispero N/A Achras sapota L. Papaya Papaya Carica papaya L. Pochote N/A Bombacopsis quinata Ramon Ramon Brosimum alicastra Tamarindo Tamarind Tamarindus indica L. Selection of species for the mixed garden was based upon known adaptations to the climate and observed market demand. A l l species, with the exception of the three timber species, Cedro, Pochote and Ramon, were found on the case study farms discussed in earlier chapters. These latter Figure 10-1. Plan of the mixed garden agroforestry system and the associated Madero Negro living fence agroecosystem. PIG SHED HOUSE o o i r ( M T ) ( M T ) ( A T ) ( M J ) ( M T ) ( J ) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (c^) (c^) * • • • • SHE0 • © ©.©.©.©'©©©© © © © Ox J © © Q © © © © © © © © © \?*o (5) (i*) (S) (5) (5) (S) (S) (S) (S) (5) (S) (5) 10 . • . . . — © © © © © © @ © © © ® © • L I V I N G FENCE OF G S Cm Cedrela mexicana Cn Cocos n u c i f e r a Am Annona muricata Ca C i t r u s a u r a n t i f o l i a GS G l i r i c i d i a sepium Mi Mangifera i n d i c a Em Eugenia malaccensis Ao Anacardium o c c i d e n t a l e As Achras sapota Bq Bombacopsis quinata Ba Brosimum a l i c a s t r a T i Tamarindus i n d i c a 197 species did, however, appear on farms in other areas of this l i f e zone, as indicated by data from the i n i t i a l farm survey (Chapter 5). The choice of the particular timber species was also due to their rapid growth and for the strong demand for them in the market place. Ramon i s not as well known in Costa Rica as i t is in Mexico, but is known as a fine timber. In addition, Ramon produces a nut that i s superior to corn in nutritional value (Puleston 1982) and has foliage that can be used as animal fodder and so i s expected to be important in pig production. A schedule of the harvest times for the different f r u i t and nut species i s given in Table 10-3. This schedule was compiled from my data and from Fernandez Flores (1984). This Table gives a general indication of the distribution of income from the mixed garden during the year. Table 10-3. Seasonal harvest schedule for f r u i t and nut trees i n the mixed garden. ($=potential income; *=farm consumption) M O N T H JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Species Banana Cashew Coconut Limon Mango Manzana de Agua Nispero Papaya Soursop Ramon $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ * * $ $ * * * * * $ $ $ * * * * * $ $ $ S $ $ The principal action of the simulation i s to estimate stem wood biomass, stem height growth and f r u i t production for a l l 14 species except limon, as a basis for calculating economic value and biomass energy accumulation. Biomass for banana and papaya was not estimated, since the main purpose of estimates of stem wood biomass was to calculate the potential energy stored in woody biomass. These species, because of the nature of their stems, are incidental to this calculation. It should 198 therefore be noted that total mixed garden biomass values given later thus represent only the 11 principal tree species. Stem wood volume can be calculated from stem wood biomass knowing the wood density of the particular species. In calculating values for stem wood biomass and height growth I was able to find data from Costa Rica for Cedro and Pochote. Data on these parameters for the fruit-tree species are non-existent in the literature. Consequently, for the purposes of this simulation, I have used the value for Cedro as this i s the lowest value in the literature on stem wood biomass for tropical trees. For estimates of f r u i t and nut production I have relied on my own data, together with a variety of other sources (Arias Rodriguez 1977; Baggio 1982; Samson 1980). More detail of the management of particular species i s given in Table 10-4. Table 10-4. Management notes on the different mixed garden species and Madero Negro, as represented i n the simulation model. Banano: - planted as corms; produce f i r s t raceme in year 1; a raceme weights about 20 kg - i n i t i a l planting of 270 plants, divided into four groups and planted at 1 month intervals - planted on a 3 x 3 meter square on approx. 1 hectare - intended for use as pig feed with some sales - i n i t i a l population of 270 reduced to approx. 70 as f r u i t and timber trees develop Maranon: - planted as selected seedlings; produces f r u i t in third year - eight trees planted alternating with soursop trees every 5 meters - intended for sale of fresh f r u i t with some home consumption of f r u i t and nuts; f r u i t production varies between 5 - 100 kg/tree/yr with nut yield between 1-20 kg/tree/yr - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 10.46 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 0.47 m/yr - stem wood density: 0.42 gm/cc (estimate) - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg Cedro: - planted as selected seedlings obtained from government extension services - 15 trees planted on a 10 x 10 meter triangle; trees planted inside of a row of alternating pochote and ramon trees - location of trees aimed at using edge effects for maximum production and for ease of harvest - intended for sale as a precious timber in a rotation of 30 - 35 years - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 10.46 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 0.61 m/yr 199 Table 10 -4. Continued ... Cedro: - stem wood density: 0.40 gm/cc - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg Coco: - planted as seedlings obtained from neighbours - 33 t a l l variety coconuts planted in the middle of the triangles formed by the timber and fr u i t trees - intended for sale as coconut water - production begins in year 6 and averages 40 - 60 nuts/tree - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 10.46 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 1.00 m/yr - stem wood density: 0.70 gm/cc (estimate) - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg Limon: - 3 seedlings planted - intended for home use Madero Negro: - planted along three sides of the mixed garden and managed as a liv i n g fence agroecosystem - 264 1.5 meter high posts planted at 2 meter intervals - intended for production of firewood for sale and home use; foliage used to supplement pig feed and in compost - twice yearly harvests begin in second year after posts firmly established - annual stem wood (i.e., branches only) estimated at 16 kg/yr - c a l o r i f i c value equals 4900 Kcal/kg (Baggio 1982; NAS 1980) Mango: - 12 seedlings planted interspersed with other f r u i t trees - intended for sale, in addition to home consumption - production begins in year 5; assumed peak production equal to 400 to 600 fruits/tree (200 - 1000 kg/tree) - variety selected produces a large f r u i t favoured in the market - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 10.46 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 0.61 m/yr - stem wood density: 0.90 gm/cc - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg Manzana de Agua: - 6 seedlings planted from seed produced locally - intended for sale; fruits biannually with production beginning in year 4 - planted interspersed with other f r u i t trees - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 10.46 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 0.61 m/yr - stem wood density: 0.90 gm/cc - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg Nispero: - 12 selected seedlings planted interspersed with other f r u i t trees - intended for sale; production begins in year 5 - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 10.46 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 0.61 m/yr - stem wood density: 1.16 gm/cc - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg 200 Table 10-4. Continued Papaya: - planted from seedlings produced from selected seed obtained through government extension services - i n i t i a l density of 270 plants spaced at 3 x 3 m on about 1 hectare - planting density reduced as f r u i t and timber trees develop to around 70 plants - intended for sale; production begins in year 1 and averages between 20 - 150 fruit/tree/yr; fruits weight 1 - 3 kg Pochote: - planted as selected seedlings obtained from government extension services - 15 trees planted on a 10 x 10 meter triangle; trees planted as a row of alternating pochote and ramon trees - location of trees aimed at using edge effects for maximum production and for ease of harvest - intended for sale as a precious timber in a rotation of 30 - 35 years - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 11.7 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 1.32 m/yr - stem wood density: 0.45 gm/cc - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg Ramon: - planted as selected seedlings obtained from government extension services - 12 trees planted on a 10 x 10 meter triangle; trees planted as a row of alternating pochote and ramon trees - location of trees aimed at using edge effects for maximum production and for ease of harvest - intended for nut production as pig feed and home consumption, as well as for sale as a precious timber in a rotation of 30 - 35 years - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 104 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 1.32 m/yr - stem wood density: 0.85 gm/cc (average of heartwood and softwood) - average nut yield per tree equals 60 kg/yr - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg Guanabana: - 22 seedlings planted from seed obtained locally - planted interspersed with other f r u i t trees - intended for sale;production begins in year 5 and averages between 12 - 24 fruits/yr; average f r u i t weight is 1.5 kg - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 10.46 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 0.47 m/yr - stem wood density: 0.65 gm/cc (estimate) - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg Tamarindo: - 8 seedlings planted from seed obtained locally - planted as a row of alternating tamarind and cashew trees - intended for sale - annual stem biomass increment estimated at 10.46 kg/yr; height increment estimated at 0.47 m/yr - stem wood density: 0.82 gm/cc (estimate) - c a l o r i f i c value assumed to be 3000 Kcal/kg 201 In the general management of the mixed garden, "weeds" are tolerated for their role in providing habitat for insect predators ( A l t i e r i 1985) u n t i l they threaten production, at which time they are cut back. It i s assumed that chickens w i l l control some weeds, particularly close to the farm house. Most organic matter from pruning, spoilage and from the household that does not feed the pigs i s recycled via the compost p i t . Composting i s integrated with disposal of the pig manure. The annual return of compost to the s o i l around the trees i s the only f e r t i l i z a t i o n carried out. None of the farmers interviewed during the study reported having any serious pest problems in their mixed gardens. It is assumed that as a result of efforts to maintain a diversity of plant forms and species and to maintain s o i l f e r t i l i t y (i.e., healthy plants are the farmer's best defence against potential pests), pest problems w i l l be minor. The major cost anticipated for the mixed garden i s the employment of a full-time farmhand. At 120 colones/day for a six-day week plus 36 to 37 percent benefits and the "aguinaldo" (Christmas bonus), this expense comes to about 50,000 colones/year. In addition, the cost of seedlings and pig breeding stock (Table 10-5) is another large expense in the f i r s t year. Other expenses incurred are for materials for the construction of shelters for the pigs, annual veterinary charges, and annual miscellaneous ("other crop expenses") costs. In i n i t i a t i n g the mixed garden agroforestry system, the farmer i s assumed to take out an agricultural bank loan for 29,350 colones at an annual interest rate of 8 percent and payable over 12 months. This loan covers capital expenses in acquiring seedlings, pig breeding stock and building materials. Income from plantain and from the rice/melon/pipian agroecosystem, has been reduced from the observed values for Farm 226 in proportion to the smaller area dedicated to these activities in the simulated farm. However, levels of operating and fixed expenses remain the same as for 202 Farm 226. Table 10-5. Assumed coats of seedlings and pig breeding stock, i n Costa Rican colones. Type Cost/ Seedling Quantity Total Cost Banana 20/corm 270 5400. ,00 Cashew 25 8 200. ,00 Cedro na 15 na Coconut 10 33 330. ,00 Limon na 3 na Madero Negro 20 264 5280. ,00 Mango na 12 na Manzana de Agua na 6 na Nispero 20 12 240. ,00 Papaya 100 270 (seeds) 100. .00 Pochote na 15 na Ramon na 12 na Soursop na 22 na Tamarind na 8 na Sub-Total: 11,350. ,00 Cost of Breeding Stock Sow (piglet) 1000 3 3000. ,00 male 3000 1 3000. ,00 Sub-Total: 6,000. ,00 TOTAL: 17,350. ,00 Note: Seedlings marked "na" are assumed to be acquired locally at no cost or from government extension services as part of a forestry development program. 10.2 Results Results for this simulation of a farming system with a mixed garden agroforestry component are summarized in four tables. Fruit yield and economic value are given in Table 10-6. Similar data for the three timber species are summarized in Table 10-7. The third table, Table 10-8, high-lights the potential effects of the mixed garden agroforestry system on farm income and expenses. Tree-stem wood biomass and energy content are presented in Table 10-9. 10.2.1 Mixed Garden Fruit Production Most of the tree f r u i t species do not begin production u n t i l year Table 10-6. Annual f r u i t production and value f or the model mixed garden agroforestry system. Units for "yield/tree" and Rican colones. "yield/garden" are numbers of f r u i t or nuts; "value" i s i n Costa Species Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Y E 7 A R 8 9 10 11 12 mango y i e l d / t r e e 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 500 500 500 500 yiel d / g a r d e n 0 0 0 1200 2400 3600 4800 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 value 0 0 0 1200 2400 3600 4800 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 manzana y i e l d / t r e e 0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 de yield/garden 0 0 0 6000 12000 18000 24000 30000 30000 30000 30000 30000 agua value 0 0 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 n i s p e r o y i e l d / t r e e 0 0 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 yie l d / g a r d e n 0 0 0 0 6000 12000 18000 24000 24000 24000 24000 24000 value 0 0 0 0 1200 2400 3600 4800 4800 4800 4800 4800 ramon y i e l d / t r e e 0 0 0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 60 60 yiel d / g a r d e n 0 0 0 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 720 720 tamarind y i e l d / t r e e 0 0 0 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 8000 8000 yield / g a r d e n 0 0 0 16000 24000 32000 40000 48000 56000 64000 64000 64000 value 0 0 0 2560 3840 5120 6400 7680 8960 10240 10240 10240 o' LU Table 10-6. (Continued) Species Factor 1 2 3 4 soursop y i e l d / t r e e 0 0 0 0 yield / g a r d e n 0 0 0 0 value 0 0 0 0 cashew y i e l d / t r e e 0 0 800 1000 yie l d / g a r d e n 0 0 6400 8000 value 0 0 6400 8000 coconut y i e l d / t r e e 0 0 0 0 yield / g a r d e n 0 0 0 0 value 0 0 0 0 Y E A R 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 10 12 14 16 18 18 18 176 220 264 308 352 396 396 396 7040 8800 10560 12320 14080 15840 15840 15840 1200 1700 2000 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 9600 13600 16000 17600 17600 17600 17600 17600 9600 13600 16000 17600 17600 17600 17600 17600 0 20 25 30 40 50 50 50 0 660 825 990 1320 1650 1650 1650 0 1320 1650 1980 2640 3300 3300 3300 Table 10-6. (Continued) Species Factor papaya y i e l d / t r e e y i e l d / g a r d e n value Y E A R 6 7 8 10 11 12 60 70 70 70 70 16200 18900 18900 18900 18900 70 4900 70 70 70 70 70 70 4900 4900 4900 4900 4900 4900 113400 132300 132300 132300 132300 34300 34300 34300 34300 34300 34300 34300 banana y i e l d / t r e e 1 yie l d / g a r d e n 270 kg/garden 4860 energy y i e l d 486 limon y i e l d / t r e e 0 yie l d / g a r d e n 0 2 540 9720 972 0 0 2 540 9720 972 0 0 2 540 9720 972 50 150 2 540 9720 972 100 300 2 140 2520 252 150 450 2 140 2520 252 200 600 2 140 2520 252 250 750 2 140 2520 252 300 900 2 140 2520 252 300 900 2 140 •300 900 2 140 2520 2520 252 252 300 900 TOTAL YEARLY INCOME: 113400 132300 138700 144660 157580 70940 79710 87680 91380 95080 95080 95080 o in 206 4 or 5, and then may not reach peak production for another four or five years. The planting of banana, and papaya in particular, was aimed at f i l l i n g in the i n i t i a l production vacuum. Papaya is a high-value f r u i t crop, generally managed as a monoculture, which produces f r u i t in the f i r s t year. Continued management of papaya as a monoculture in commercial operations results in increased use of expensive pest and disease control chemicals. Consequently, emphasis on papaya is reduced in year 5 when other f r u i t species begin to yield crops in order to avoid involvement with petro-chemicals. Banana, which also produces f r u i t in the f i r s t year, i s meant as an early staple for pig production. Values used for "yield/tree" and in pricing have been selected in the mid- to low-range, and when combined with a spoilage factor of 30% I believe give reasonable estimates of potential income. It should be made clear that this discussion i s based upon local and not export markets. Producing for the export market often imposes restrictions on farmers which, together with more v o l a t i l i t y in demand, increases the risk for farmers. Income from papaya has a dramatic effect on total mixed garden income over the f i r s t five years un t i l papaya densities are reduced. However, income remains substantial, levelling off in year 10 and remaining constant to year 35. Income from f r u i t sales presupposes a ready market. For our theoretical farm situated in Pitahaya i t i s not unreasonable to assume the potential for sales. Puntarenas, a major port and resort area, has many hotels and restaurants, in addition to numerous small neighbourhood shops where fresh f r u i t and vegetables are sold. Esparta, another large community, i s only 20 to 30 kilometres away and Pitahaya i s i t s e l f only 2 to 3 kilometres from the Interamerican Highway and the poss i b i l i t y of road-side sales. Similar mixed gardens have been described by Maffioli and Holle (1982) for the Costarican communities of Orotina and San Mateo as part of an earlier preliminary mixed garden study. 207 10.2.2 Mixed Garden Timber Production Small-scale plantings or mini-plantations of high-value timber species has been advocated previously (Price 1982). The advantages of such plantings, particularly in conjunction with the mixed garden, are better and less expensive management compared to woodlots or plantations, opportunities for increasing farmer awareness and familiarity (i.e., with alternative crops and cropping techniques) and low risk. Recognition by the banking institutions of the value accumulating annually with the development of such plantings would be a low-risk means for farmers on a wide variety of s o i l types to increase the value of their farms and their access to capital for enhancing their operations. Two of the three timber species in Table 10-7 have an established demand in Costa Rica. The third, Ramon, i s less common but has a reputation as a good timber. The value of these timbers on the local market i s much less than on the international market and i s due to the unorganized nature of the forest "industry" in Costa Rica. The effect of this situation i s illustrated by a US$0.43/boardfoot for Cedro in Costa Rica, while in Puerto Rico, during the same period (i.e., 1982), i t was selling for US$2.00/boardfoot (Muller 1983). Three independent and generally uncoordinated groups — harvesters, sawmills and manufacturers — stand between the tree and the consumer. The result of this situation i s that harvesting i s largely indiscriminant, replanting i s rare and the supply of native timbers i s diminishing and in some cases non-existent. A l l of the preceding, I believe, enhances the economic opportunities for farmers with small scale plantings of these species. With the exception of Ramon, which produces a nut crop, the timber trees do not contribute directly to farm income unt i l year 20 when they become potentially harvestable. A normal rotation for these species would be 30 - 35 years. Given the number of trees, and inspite of the relatively poor price, the sale of this timber has a dramatic effect upon farm income, overshadowing a l l other sources of income. Table 10-7. Five year increments (simulated) for biomass, energy content, height growth, stem wood volume and value (1983 price; US$0.43/boardfoot) f or Ramon, Cedro and Pochote. Values associated with Madero are Colones. Timber harvests possible from year 20 onward. Species Factor 1.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20 .00 25.00 30.00 35.00 biomass 22.10 110.50 t o a l biomass 265.20 1326.00 energy content 795.60 3978.00 height 1.36 6.80 volume .26 1.30 value 32.39 161.95 221.00 331.50 442.00 552.50 663.00 773.50 2652.00 3978.00 5304.00 6630.00 7956.00 9282.00 7956.00 11934.00 15912.00 19890.00 23868.00 27846.00 13.60 2.60 323.90 20.40 3.90 485.85 27.20 5.20 647.80 34.00 6.50 809.75 40.80 7.80 971.70 47.60 9.10 1133.65 cedro biomass 10.46 t o t a l biomass 156.90 energy content 470.70 height .61 volume .26 value 32.39 52.30 784.50 2353.50 3 1 05 30 104.60 1569.00 4707.00 6. 2. .10 .60 161.95 323.90 156.90 2353.50 7060.50 9.15 3.90 485.85 209.20 261.50 313.80 366.10 3138.00 3922.50 4707.00 5491.50 9414.00 11767.50 14121.00 16474.50 12.20 15.25 18.30 21.35 5.20 6.50 7.80 9.10 647.80 809.75 971.70 1133.65 pochote biomass 11.70 58.50 t o t a l biomass 175.50 877.50 energy content 526.50 2632.50 height 1.36 6.80 volume .26 1.30 value 32.39 161.95 117.00 1755.00 5265.00 13.60 2.60 323.90 175.50 2632.50 234.00 3510.00 292.50 4387.50 351.00 5265.00 409.50 6142.50 7897.50 10530.00 13162.50 15795.00 18427.50 20.40 3.90 485.85 27.20 5.20 647.80 34.00 6.50 809.75 40.80 7.80 971.70 47.60 9.10 1133.65 madero biomass 8.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 t o t a l biomass 2112.00 4224.00 4224.00 4224.00 4224.00 4224.00 4224.00 4224.00 energy content 10348.80 20697.60 20697.60 20697.60 20697.60 20697.60 20697.60 20697.60 value .00 8448.00 8448.00 8448.00 8448.00 8448.00 8448.00 8448.00 VALUE: STANDING TIMBER (US$) VALUE TO FARMER AT TIME OF HARVEST 1360.38 6801.90 13603.80 20405.70 27207.60 34009.50 40811.40 47613.30 N/A N/A N/A N/A 27207.60 34009.50 40811.40 47613.30 NOTE: Value i n Costa Rican Colones f o r 1983 would be based upon an exchange r a t e o f 47 colones/US$. 209 10.2.3 Farm Income and Expenses Simulated farm income and expenses for the theoretical farm i s given in Table 10-8. This Table indicates the effect on farm income of the mixed garden agroforestry system at different stages of development. As indicated earlier, the basic farm model is Case Study 226. Changes to the basic model on the income side include the scaling-down of receipts from plantain and pipian, and the addition of income from f r u i t crops, firewood, timber and pigs. On the expense side, some new general expenses have been added, the most significant of which are for hired labour and repairs, building and improvements. Significant f i r s t year costs include acquiring planting and pig breeding stock. For these latter costs and for some of the other expenses incurred during the f i r s t year, a bank loan i s assumed. Net farm income (Ending Cash Balance) for the simulated farm, except for year one, i s considerably greater than i t is for Case Study 226 (Table 9-1). In addition, farm size has been reduced by 1.5 hectares and the maximum available family and hired labour increased by 50 hours/week. Both papaya and timber production account for the increase at different periods of mixed garden development. However, after the density of papaya plants i s reduced in year 5 and before timber becomes potentially harvestable in year 20, the additional income from f r u i t , firewood and pig sales s t i l l increases income by a third to a half in comparison to that of Farm 226. Another effect on income of mixed garden production is to reinforce the existing pattern of monthly income distribution, with the po s s i b i l i t y of reducing the problem associated with low income months. In terms of labour usage, more labour would be required in the mixed garden for managing harvests and the recycling of organic matter. A greater labour requirement translates into more employment and more effective use of manpower. More efficient labour usage arises because production is spread over more of the year, unlike the intermittent labour requirement pattern that occurs for most annual crops. Table 10-8. Simulated farm income and expenses for a farming system with a»' mixed garden agroforestry component at different stages of development. Values are in Costa Rican colones and are based upon 1983 prices. 1 5 10 Y : 15 E A R 20 25 30 35 1 Operating Receipts P l a n t a i n 78592 78592 78592 78592 78592 78592 78592 78592 2 P i p i a n 12295 12295 12295 12295 12295 12295 12295 12295 3 F r u i t Crops 113400 151676 81046 81046 81046 81046 81046 81046 4 Firewood 8448 8448 8448 8448 8448 8448 8448 5 Timber 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1278757 1598446 1918135 2237825 6 Pigs 24000 24000 24000 24000 24000 24000 24000 7 8 TOTAL CASH INFLOW 204287 275011 204381 204381 1483138 1802827 2122516 2442206 9 10 OPERATING EXPENSES Seed 11350 11 P i g Breeding Stock 6000 12 V e t e r i n a r y S e r v i c e s 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 13 F e r t i l i z e r and Lime 1735 1735 1735 1735 1735 1735 1735 1735 14 Chemicals 1373 1373 1373 1373 1373 1373 1373 1373 15 Other Crop Expenses 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 16 Hi r e d Labour 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 50000 Table 10-8. Continued ... YEAR 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 17 Repairs B u i l d i n g s & Improvements 10000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 18 U t i l i t i e s 11663 11663 11663 11663 11663 11663 11663 11663 19 Other Farm Expenses 2436 2436 2436 2436 2436 2436 2436 2436 20 22 T o t a l Cash Operating Expenses 96557 72207 72207 72207 72207 72207 72207 72207 23 24 Other Expenditures Family l i v i n g Expenses 44450 44450 44450 44450 44450 44450 44450 44450 25 S o c i a l S e c u r i t y 2431 2431 2431 2431 2431 2431 2431 2431 26 Medical 1770 1770 1770 1770 1770 1770 1770 1770 27 Other Non-Farm Expenses 17109 17109 17109 17109 17109 17109 17109 17109 28 29 T o t a l F i x e d Expenses 65760 65760 65760 65760 65760 65760 65760 65760 30 31 TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 162317 137967 137967 137967 137967 137967 137967 137967 32 33 CASH AVAILABLE 41970 137044 66414 66414 1345171 1664860 1984549 2304239 34 Table 10-8. Continued YEAR 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 35 Payment on Debt P r i n c i p a l 29350 36 I n t e r e s t 1272 37 T o t a l Debt Payments 30622 38 39 ENDING CASH BALANCE 11348 137044 66414 66414 1345171 1664860 1984549 2304239 J I t i s assumed th a t the timber species would not reach h a r v e s t a b l e form u n t i l year 20 onward. 213 10.2.4 The Mixed Garden Energy Store A l l l i v i n g things absorb energy and store a part of i t as biomass. Woody plants, as reservoirs of stored energy, are assuming increasing importance for people in many parts of the World (NSF 1980). The accumulated store of energy in the trees of the mixed garden i s given in Table 10-9. There are a number of ways of assessing the value of this store of energy. Considering the mixed garden trees as a source of firewood, and assuming that the average family uses about 15.7 kg of firewood per day in the TDF l i f e zone (Lemckert and Campos 1981), the mixed garden would supply the needs of one family for 8 months in year 1 and 12 families for a year in year 35. From an economic perspective, the value of this firewood, assuming no discrimination among the different species, would be about 6400 colones in year 1 and 97,000 colones in year 35. It should be noted that these values are underestimated because branch wood i s not considered in the biomass calculations and could, for some species, increase woody biomass from 20 to 60 percent. The economic value of three of the species as timber has been presented above and ranges from 1.3 million colones in year 20 to 2.2 million in year 35. The wood from f r u i t trees can also be used in construction and manufacture and so also has value as timber. In addition, processing the wood into charcoal would enhance the sale value of firewood. 10.3 Discussion The main question underlying this thesis i s the potential of the existing traditional mixed garden to be developed into a viable, but ecologically conservative, commercial agroecosystem. The mixed garden i s inherently ecologically conservative, thus this question turns upon i t s commercial potential. Mixed gardens are predominantly tree and shrub gardens, contrasting sharply, in ecological terms, with most cash crops which tend to be annuals. Perennial cropping systems in the tropics, long neglected by agricultural researchers and development planners, are now Table 10-9. Simulated f i v e year increments for stem wood biomass (kg), energy store (Kcal), height growth (m) and stem wood volume (m3) for the p r i n c i p a l tree species i n the mixed garden. Y E A R Species Factor 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 mango biomass 10. 46 62 .46 127. ,46 192 .46 257 .46 322 .46 387. .46 452 .46 t o t a l biomass 125. 52 749 .52 1529. .52 2309 .52 3089 .52 3869 .52 4649. ,52 5429 .52 energy store 409320. 72 2444184 .72 4987764. ,72 7531344 .72 10074924 .72 12618504 .72 15162084. .72 17705664 .72 height - 61 3 .05 6. ,10 9 .15 12 .20 . 15 .25 18. .30 21 .35 manzana biomass 10. 46 62 .46 127. ,46 192 .46 257 .46 322 .46 387. .46 452 .46 t o t a l biomass 62. 76 374 .76 764. 76 1154 .76 1544 .76 1934 .76 2324. .76 2714 .76 energy store 204660. 36 1222092 .36 2493882. 36 3765672 .36 5037462 .36 6309252 .36 7581042. .36 8852832 .36 height • 61 3 .05 6. ,10 9 .15 12 .20 15 .25 18. 30 21 .35 nispero biomass 10. 46 62 .46 127. 46 192 .46 257 .46 322 .46 387. 46 452 .46 t o t a l biomass 125. 52 749 .52 1529. 52 2309 .52 3089 .52 3869 .52 4649. 52 5429 .52 energy store 409320. 72 2444184 .72 4987764. 72 7531344 .72 10074924 .72 12618504 .72 15162084. 72 17705664 .72 height • 61 3 .05 6. ,10 9 .15 12 .20 15 .25 18. 30 21 .35 ramon biomass 22. 10 110 .50 221. 00 331 .50 442 .00 552 .50 663. 00 773 .50 toa l biomass 265. 20 1326 .00 2652. 00 3978 .00 5304 .00 6630 .00 7956. 00 9282 .00 energy store 864817. 20 4324086 .00 8648172. 00 12972258 .00 17296344 .00 21620430 .00 25944516. 00 30268602 .00 height 1. 36 6 .80 13. 60 20 .40 27 .20 34 .00 40. 80 47 .60 volume . 26 1 .30 2. 60 3 .90 5 .20 6 .50 7. 80 9 .10 value 32. 39 161 .95 323. 90 485 .85 647 .80 809 .75 971. 70 1133. .65 tamarind biomass 10. 46 62 .46 127. 46*- 192 .46 257 .46 322 .46 387. 46 452, .46 t o t a l biomass 83. 68 499 .68 1019. 68 1539 .68 2059 .68 2579 .68 3099. 68 3619. .68 energy store 272880. 48 1629456 .48 3325176. 48 5020896 .48 6716616 .48 8412336 .48 10108056. 48 11803776, .48 height • 47 2 .35 4. 70 7 .05 9 .40 11 .75 14. 10 16, .45 soursop biomass 10. 46 62 .46 127. 46 192 .46 257 .46 322 .46 387. 46 452, .46 t o t a l biomass 230. 12 1374 .12 2804. 12 4234 .12 5664 .12 7094 .12 8524. 12 9954. .12 energy store 750421. 32 4481005 .32 9144235. 32 13807465 .32 18470695 .32 23133925 .32 27797155. 32 32460385. .32 height . 47 2 .35 4. 70 7 .05 9 .40 11 .75 14. 10 16. .45 Table 10.9. Continued ... Y E A R Species Factor 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 cashew biomass 10 .46 62 .46 127. ,46 192. 46 257 .46 322 .46 387. .46 452 .46 t o t a l biomass 83 .68 499 .68 1019. 68 1539. 68 2059 .68 2579 .68 3099. .68 3619 .68 energy store 272880 .48 1629456 .48 3325176. .48 5020896. 48 6716616 .48 8412336 .48 10108056. .48 11803776 .48 height .47 2 .35 4. .70 7. 05 9 .40 11 .75 14. .10 16 .45 coconut biomass 10 .46 62 .46 127. .46 192. 46 257 .46 322 .46 387. .46 452 .46 t o t a l biomass 345 .18 2061 .18 4206. ,18 6351. 18 8496 .18 10641 .18 12786. .18 14931 .18 energy store 1125631 .98 6721507 .98 13716352. .98 20711197. 98 27706042 .98 34700887 .98 41695732. .98 48690577 .98 height 1 .00 5 .00 10. 00 15. 00 20 .00 25 .00 30. .00 35 .00 cedro biomass id .46 52 .30 104. 60 156. 90 209 .20 261 .50 313. .80 366 .10 t o t a l biomass 156 .90 784 .50 1569. 00 2353. 50 3138 .00 3922 .50 4707. ,00 5491 .50 energy store 511650 .90 2558254 .50 5116509. .00 7674763. 50 10233018 .00 12791272 .50 15349527. .00 17907781 .50 height .61 3 .05 6. ,10 9. 15 12 .20 15 .25 18. ,30 21 .35 volume .26 1 .30 2. 60 3. 90 5 .20 6 .50 7. .80 9 .10 value 32 .39 161 .95 323. 90 485. 85 647 .80 809 .75 971. .70 1133 .65 pochote biomass 11 .70 58 .50 117. 00 175. 50 234 .00 292 .50 351. .00 409 .50 t o t a l biomass 175 .50 877 .50 1755. 00 2632. 50 3510 .00 4387 .50 5265. ,00 6142 .50 energy store 572305 .50 2861528 .50 5723055. 00 8584583. 50 11446110 .00 14307638 .50 17169165. ,00 20030693 .50 height 1 .36 6 .80 13. 60 20. 40 27 .20 34 .00 40. .80 47 .60 volume .26 1. .30 2. 60 .3. 90 5 .20 6 .50 " 7. 80 9. .10 value 32 .39 161 .95 323. 90 485. 85 647 .80 809 .75 971. .70 1133 .65 madero biomass 8 .00 16 .00 16. 00 16. 00 16 .00 16 .00 16. 00 16. .00 t o t a l biomass 2112 .00 4224 .00 4224. 00 4224. 00 4224 .00 4224 .00 4224. 00 4224. .00 energy store 10348800 .00 20697600 .00 20697600. 00 20697600. 00 20697600 .00 20697600 .00 20697600. 00 20697600. .00 value .00 8448 .00 8448. 00 8448. 00 8448 .00 8448 .00 8448. 00 8448. .00 GARDEN BIOMASS (kg): 3766.06 13520.46 23073.46 32626.46 42179.46 51732.46 61285.46 70838.46 TOTAL ENERGY STORE (Kcal): 15742689.66 51013356.06 82165689.06 1.1332e8 1.4447e8 1.7562e8 2.0678e8 2.3793e8 216 becoming more and more "respectable" and accepted (Bavappa and Jordan 1982; Nair 1979; Watson 1982; Zaffaroni 1979). This i s inevitable given the increasing awareness that farmers regularly manage trees on their farms (Jones and Price 1985). Four studies reported in the literature (Bavappa and Jordan 1982; Nair 1979; Hueveldop and Espinosa 1983; Zaffaroni 1979) stand out in the context of the question addressed in this chapter. Two of these studies are from Costa Rica (Hueveldop and Espinosa 1983; Zaffaroni 1979). Hueveldop and Espinosa, in a study of farming systems in the region of Puriscal, Costa Rica, identified two groups of coffee growers. One of these groups had greater access to capital and so was able to manage their coffee plantations in the manner prescribed by "conventional" agriculture, with f e r t i l i z e r s and disease control. The other group of farmers were capital-poor and as a consequence were unable to afford f e r t i l i z e r s . In response to their situation, this latter group of farmers increased the density of f r u i t trees used in coffee plantations for shade. Economic analysis of the two groups found income levels more or less equal and in some cases greater for the capital-poor group. In an area of erosion-prone soils and high r a i n f a l l , the added plant density also reduced loss of s o i l s . Zaffaroni (1979) describes a situation similar in some respects to the one in Puriscal but for the Atlantic lowland cacao plantations. Like coffee, cacao requires the use of shade in i t s management. Both timber and f r u i t trees are used for shade in these plantations. These secondary crop species assumed new importance when the cacao crop was wiped out by Manilla, a fungus which attacks the cacao f r u i t . Many farmers of cacao survived on the sale of timber or f r u i t , and because of this experience Zaffaroni advocates a programme of diversification of cacao plantations aimed at enhancing the other potential sources of income from these plantations. Diversification i s also the theme of Nair's (1979) monograph on 217 intensive multiple cropping with coconuts in India. His general conclusions are that multi-species coconut gardens make better use of ecological resources, enhance incomes, and improve labour-use efficiency. Of the four studies cited, the study by Bavappa and Jordan (1982) most closely relates to the simulation presented in this chapter. Situated in S r i Lanka's tea plantation region, the objective of their study was to develop a cropping system modelled after local mixed gardens. The system developed attempted to rationalize planting distances and species selection. Fourteen species were included for cash and subsistence production of f r u i t s , spices and coffee. Planted in 1978, extrapolation of growth by year three led to the prediction of a potential income of US$3,000/ha/yr when the system reached f u l l production (year 20 onward). This income would be a substantial improvement over existing smallholder income levels for the area. The four studies support the results of the mixed garden agroforestry system simulation presented above. My simulation differs from these other studies by including an explicit timber component, as well as an integrated animal production component. In addition, the use of a l i v i n g fence of Madero Negro allows for the simultaneous production of firewood and fodder. The potential income generated by this simulated system exceeds those of actual case studies discussed earlier in the thesis, as indicated by Table 10-10. Except for year 1, with i t s added start-up costs, the simulated farm i s potentially 2 to 200 times more profitable. The ratios in Table 10-10 for year 20 to year 35 assume that a l l the timber is cut at the same time. In an ecological context, the value of the store of energy in the mixed garden flows from two inherent characteristics: 1) i t s physical form or structure; and 2) i t s a b i l i t y to process and accumulate more energy. By i t s presence and according to i t s structure, vegetation has a direct impact on the energy balance of a landscape (Geiger 1950; Kedziora et a l . 1989). The implications of such impacts can mean a range of potential 218 regimes for air and s o i l temperatures, evaporativity and r a i n f a l l depending upon the type of vegetation present, a l l of which can translate into a more amenable livi n g environment for both plant and animal. Some indication of these effects was documented in Chapter 8. Table 10.10. Summary comparison of ratios of net farm income at different stages of mixed garden development for the simulated farm and for each of the case study farms from Pitahaya. Y E A R 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Farm 221 1.30 15.72 7.59 7.59 154.34 191.02 227.70 264.38 Farm 226 .37 4.45 2.15 2.15 43.72 54.12 64.51 74.90 Farm 303 .43 5.25 2.53 2.53 51.52 63.77 76.01 88.26 Through i t s a b i l i t y to process energy, vegetation becomes the motor that animates or brings l i f e to the s o i l . Organic matter from both the above- and below-ground components of vegetation provides energy for s o i l organisms and also affects a variety of physical and chemical qualities of the s o i l . The basis of agriculture i s founded on this latter relationship. Consequently, the more permanent and the more profound (i.e., structurally) the relationship, the greater the potential for long-term agricultural productivity. 10.4 Conclusions With due regard to the limitations of the simulation developed in this chapter, I find support for the contention that the traditional mixed garden in Costa Rica can be developed into an ecologically conservative yet commercially viable cropping system. In particular, the incorporation of high-value timber species into the traditional mixed garden shows the potential to significantly improve the long-term economy of the farm. Integrating animal production, as Wagner (1957) has advocated earlier, also can enhance garden productivity. 219 CHAPTER 11 GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Although my primary interest in the mixed garden was i n i t i a l l y in terms of i t s ecological attributes, two factors intervened to lead to a much broader emphasis. F i r s t l y , there was l i t t l e or no information available for Costa Rica (or for Central America, for that matter) on any aspect of the mixed garden, so there were few starting points to build upon. In addition, information that was available from other areas in the region (i.e., Mexico and Honduras) was either out-dated and insufficient, or from a sufficiently different cultural setting as to warrant a separate investigation. Secondly, agroforestry is an applied science and the study was conceived as having an applicable result in terms of the research and development p r i o r i t i e s of the Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE), in Turrialba, Costa Rica, where I was working at the time. One of the principal p r i o r i t i e s of the Agroforestry Program of CATIE is the identification of traditional agroforestry systems in Costa Rica (and other areas of i t s mandate) which merit research and development (development here meaning the formulation of improved cropping systems for extension to farmers). It was therefore decided to undertake this study of some of the ecological, economic and agronomic aspects of the mixed garden with the objective of providing a basis for evaluating the mixed garden's possible role as a focus for future research in agroforestry. The main question and hypotheses have been framed in terms of a resource-management philosophy of efficient use of limited resources within an ecologically sound land-use system. My concern is with cropping systems for the tropics and their particular ecological appropriateness. In particular, the research addresses the mixed garden as an example of an indigenous tropical agroforestry system. The main question and supporting hypotheses addressed were as follows: 220 Main Question: What i s the role of the mixed garden on small farms i n Costa Rica, and i s this role amenable to development into a commercially-oriented, ecologically conservative cropping system? Hypotheses: HI: Mixed garden complexity and diversity parallels that of the corresponding ecological l i f e zone i n which i t i s situated. H2: The Holdridge World Li f e Zone system of ecological land classification i s an adequate method for stratifying variation i n structure and species composition of mixed gardens in Costa Rica. H3: Regardless of environment, the mixed garden has a higher cultural energy benefit-cost ratio than conventional monoculture cropping systems. H4: The output of the mixed garden can be improved. H5: The mixed garden exists as a supplementary enterprise whose primary function i s to absorb excess farm labour potential. Three approaches were taken in developing the data base with which to addressing the main question and hypotheses. These different approaches — a farm survey, farming system case studies, and a simulation model of the mixed garden — have served to address the main question, as well as providing a basis for testing the individual hypotheses. A variety of conclusions can be drawn from the data presented and these are detailed at the end of each of the appropriate chapters. ' Summarized below are what I believe to be the most important conclusions reached as a result of this study. Farm Survey Conclusions 1. Ownership and farm size are the important variables in determining the presence and character of the mixed garden; 2. The mixed garden is clearly an important component of small farming systems in Costa Rica. Though half of the gardens studied were only between 0.01 to 0.20 hectares in size, half were greater, and a few encompassed a hectare or more of land. As a percent of total farm size, mixed gardens were most important in the TDF and TMF l i f e 221 zones. 3. In general, mixed gardens are most common in the TDF region and decrease along a gradient extending to the TPWF, where they are least common. Mixed gardens are more common in economically depressed areas and less so in areas where farmers are well off. The differences between the TDF and TPWF l i f e zones, with frequencies of occurrence of mixed gardens of 91% and 64% respectively, are an example of this tendency. 4. Diversity, as measured by the average number of plant species per mixed garden, is quite low in Costa Rica in comparison to some of , the figures quoted for other areas (eg. 33 - 55 species/garden for southern Mexico; Allison 1983). However, for the individual l i f e zones, the total number of species found in a l l gardens that were studied was 117, 133, 128, 118 and 118, for the TDF, TMF, TWF, TPWF,T and TPWF l i f e zones, respectively. 5. The ranking of the ecological complexity of mixed gardens i s what one would expect i f differences in garden complexity were determined solely by between-zone differences in the environment, thus supporting Hypothesis 1. 6. Labour inputs directed to the mixed garden originate primarily from the farm family. The farmer is the principal agent in managing the mixed garden, putting in between 18 to 30 work-days per year. 7. Multivariate analysis of species presence/absence data for mixed gardens suggest that the hypothesis (Hypothesis 2) that Holdridge's system of ecological classification i s an adequate means of stratifying variation in species composition in gardens i s false. Case Study Conclusions 1. The findings support Hypothesis 3 that the mixed garden has a higher energy benefit-cost ratio than commercial cropping systems. The commercial cropping systems on the farms studied consumed between 9 to 10,000 times the amount of cultural energy as did the mixed 222 gardens. 2. Mixed gardens on small farms have the potential to contribute much more to the cash economy of the farm household than they generally do at present. The observations reported here concerning labour patterns and management pratices, together with the economic analysis, support the hypothesis (Hypothesis 4)- that the output of the mixed garden can be improved. 3. The vegetative component of the mixed garden has a minimal requirement for management input. 4. Microclimate modification by mixed garden vegetation, both at the household and village levels, i s a c r i t i c a l factor affecting the quality of l i f e in the seasonally dry l i f e zones of Costa Rica, and consequently is an important focus for future research. 5. The economic and labour use analysis presented here supports Hypothesis 5 that "the mixed garden exists as a supplementary enterprise whose primary function i s to absorb excess farm labour." 6. Mixed gardens on small farms generally have a minor role in the cash economy of the farm household, contributing principally a variety of f r u i t s , and eggs and poultry for family consumption. 7. Mixed gardens have the elements for a successful commercial cropping system but appear to lack essential motivation and a favourable market structure within which to develop. The most successful cash income earners among the case studies were mixed gardens integrating animal and f r u i t production. Simulation Study Conclusion With due regard for the limitations of a simulation of the type used in this thesis, I find support for the contention that the traditional mixed garden in Costa Rica can be developed into an ecologically conservative yet commercially viable cropping system. In particular, the incorporation of high-value timber species shows the potential to significantly improve the long-term economy of the farm. Integrating 223 animal production, as Wagner (1957) had advocated earlier, also can enhance garden productivity. Development planning in the independent countries of the Third World since the two world wars has focused upon industrialization and, in agriculture, the export market. Economic and social catch-up with Europe and North America has been the driving motivation, and the lure of short-term rewards has dominated the planning process. In this drive to catch-up, certain sectors of the economy have been ignored or deliberately sacrificed (Hayami and Ruttan 1985): among these sectors, u n t i l recently, has been the small farmer. As a result of this history of planning and development, a social and economic environment has been created in which the incentives for farmers and agricultural researchers alike favour investing in cropping systems which promise a rapid return and a high material reward. The high cost and high risk of this type of cropping system are two reasons for researching alternatives. However, development of new systems or uncovering the potential in traditional systems, like the mixed garden, w i l l be of l i t t l e help i f there i s no parallel development of social and economic policy that provides incentives for their adoption. The potential of the mixed garden in Costa Rica w i l l be achieved when local markets encourage and foster garden f r u i t production, when small-scale animal production i s integrated with other garden ac t i v i t i e s , and when the timber industry realizes the potential of "back-yard" forestry. Future research on the mixed garden might well be profitably directed, from a development perspective, towards determining what specific incentives would be necessary to foster some of the changes indicated above. In particular, I believe efforts to link sawmills and log exporters with small farmers in a programme to encourage planting timber species in mixed gardens merits special attention. This thesis has covered much ground and presented a lot of information on the tropical mixed garden in Costa Rica. Inevitably, some 224 issues relevant to the mixed garden have escaped attention or have been dealt with only slightly. This, unfortunately, is the fate of a l l research that breaks new ground. In retrospect, however, the thesis has accomplished what i t set out to do and has, in addition, established a substantial database for future researchers who find the tropical mixed garden an interesting subject. 225 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdoellah, O.S. 1985. Home gardens in Java and their future development. International Workshop on Tropical Home Gardens, Bandung, Indonesia. 10 pp. Allison, F.E. 1973. Soil Organic Matter and i t s Role in Crop Production. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York. Allison, J.L. 1983. An ecological analysis of home gardens (huertos familiares) in two Mexican villages. MA Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz. A l t i e r i , M.A. 1985. Diversification of agricultural landscapes - A v i t a l element for Pest control in sustainable agriculture. In: T.C. Eden et a l . (Eds.), Sustainable Agricultural and Integrated Farming Systems: 1984 Conference Proceedings. Michigan State Univ. Press, East Lansing, pp. 166-184 Ambar, S. & Karyono. 1976. Home garden study in the Citarum river basin, West Java. A/D/C Workshop on Household Studies, Singapore, August 3 - 7 . Anderson, E. 1950. An Indian garden at Santa Lucia, Guatemala. Ceiba 1:97-103. . 1954. Efficient and inefficient methods of measuring specific differences. In: Statistics and Mathematics in Biology. O. Kempthorne (ed.). Ames: Iowa State College Press, pp. 98-107. Anderson, J. 1979. Traditional home gardens in Southeast Asia: A prolegomenon for second generation research. Paper presented to the Vth Intern. Symp. Tropical Ecology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 16 - 21. Arias Rodriguez, J.M. 1977. Fruticultura Tropical. San Jose, Costa Rica. Asare, E.O., S.K. Oppong and K. Twum-Ampofo. 1985. Home gardens in the humid tropics of Ghana. International Workshop on Tropical Home Gardens, Bandung, Indonesia. 10 pp. Avila, M. 1983. Personal communication. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Baggio, A.J. 1982. Establecimiento, manejo y utilizacion del sistema agroforestal cercos vivos de G l i r i c i d i a sepium (Jacq.) Steud., en Costa Rica. Masters Thesis, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Bavappa, K.V.A. and V.J. Jacob. 1981. Un modelo de cultivo mixto. Ceres, 14(3):44-46. Bene, J.G., H.W. Beall & A. Cote. 1977. Trees, Food and People: Land Management in the Tropics. Pub. 084e. Int. Dev. Res. Cent., Ottawa. Bennema, J. 1978. Land evaluation for agricultural land-use planning. In: L.D. Swindale (ed.). Soil Resource Data for Agricultural  Development. Hawaii Agricultural Stationn, College of Tropical Agriculture, University of Hawaii, pp. 130-140. 226 BID. 1983. Bl Desarrollo Forestal en America Latina. Banco Inter-americano de Desarrollo, Washington, D.C. Brierley, J.S. 1985. West Indian kitchen gardens: A historical perspective with current insights from Grenada. In: V. Ninez (ed.), Food and Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 7(3):52 - 60. C.A.T.I.E. 1979. Workshop, Agroforestry Systems in Latin America, Turrialba, Costa Rica, March. Proceedings. Edited by G. De Las Salas. Turrialba, CATIE. 226 pp. C.A.T.I.E. 1982. Caracterizacion de Sistemas Agricolas de Hojancha, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Serie Materiales de Esenanza, No. 14. Turrialba, Costa Rica. 75 pp. Chandler, T. & D. Spurgeon (eds.). 1979. International Cooperation in Agroforestry. DSE/ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. Chibnik, M. 1978. The Value of subsistence production. Journal of  Anthropological Research, vol. 34:561-576. Chow, N. 1982. Tecnicas de Investigacion Social. Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana, San Jose, Costa Rica. Christanty, L. 1985. Home gardens in tropical Asia: With special reference to Indonesia. International Workshop on Tropical Home Gardens, Bandung, Indonesia. 15 pp. Christanty, L. 1989. Analysis of the sustainability and management of the Talun-kebun system of West Java, Indonesia. Ph.D. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Combe, J. & G. Budowski. 1979. Classification of agroforestry techniques. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Conklin, H.C. 1957. Hanunoo Agriculture in the Philippines. Rome, FAO. Daugherty, H.E. 1973. Conservacion Ambiental en E l Salvador: Recomen-daciones para un Programa de Accion Nacional. San Salvador: Astos Grafica Publicitarias. Dillon, J.I. and J.B. Hardaker. 1977. Farm Management Research for Small Farmer Development. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 41, Rome. Dillon, W.R. and M. Goldstein. 1984. Multivariate Analysis: Method and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto. Eckholm, Erik. 1976. Losing Ground. Environmental Stress and World Food Prospects. W.W. Norton & Company Inc., New York. Emerson, J.D. & J. Strenio. 1983. Boxplots and batch comparison. In: D.C. Hoaglin, F. Mosteller & J.W. Tukey (eds.), "Understanding Robust & Exploratory Data Analysis". John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Toronto, pp. 58 - 75. Etifier-Chazono, E. 1983. Personal communication. San Jose, Costa Rica. Ewel, J.J. 1973. An Ecological View of Energy Flow in Agroecosystems. Agriculture and the Energy Crisis:87-117. 227 Ewel, J. et a l . , Benedict, F., Berish, C , Brown, B. and Price, N. 1982. Leaf area, light transmission, roots and leaf damage in nine tropical plant communities. Agro-ecosystems. vol. 7:305-326. Fernandes, E.C.M., A. Oktinguti and J. Maghambe. 1983. The Chagga home gardens: A multi-storied agro-forestry cropping system on Mt. Kilimanjaro, Northern Tanzania. In: V. Ninez (ed.), Food and  Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 7(3):29 - 36. Fernandez Flores, L. 1984. Calendario Agricola y Pecuario de 1984. Agroindustria Leofer, S.A., San Jose, Costa Rica. Friedrich, K.H. 1977. Acopio y Analisis de Datos Relativos a l a Administracion rural. FAO, Rome. Gallardo, M.E. & J.R. Lopez. 1986. Centroamerica: La Crisis en Cifras. IICA/FLACSO, San Jose, Costa Rica. Geiger, R. 1950. The Climate Near the Ground. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Gittins, R. 1985. Canonical Analysis. A Review with Applications in Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York. Gliessman, S., R. Garcia R. & M. Amador A. 1981. The ecological basis for the application of traditional technology in the management of tropical agroecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems 7:173 - 185. Goodman, D. 1975. The theory of diversity-stability relationships in ecology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 50 (3):1-32. Guerra, G. 1982. Farm Management Handbook. IICA, Educational Texts and Materials Series, No. 49. San Jose, Costa Rica. Hartshorn, G. et a l . 1982. Costa Rica: Country Environmental Profile, a Field Study. Trejos, San Jose, Costa Rica. Hart, R. 1974. A natural ecosystem analog approach to the design of a successional crop system for tropical forest environments. Biotropica. supplement 12(2):73 - 82. Hayami, Y. & V.W. Ruttan. 1985. Agricultural Development. An International Perspective. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Hildebrand, P.E. & E.C. French. 1972. Un sistema Salvadoreno de multi-cultivos; su potencial y sus problemas. Santa Tecla, E l Salvador. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. Holdridge, L. 1959. Ecological indications of the need for a new approach to tropical land use. Economic Botany vol. 13:271-280. . 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Centre, San Jose, Costa Rica. & J. Tosi. 1972. The world l i f e zone clas s i f i c a t i o n system and forestry research. Tropical Science Center, San Jose, Costa Rica. Hueveldop, J. and L. Espinoza. 1983. El Componente Arboreo en Acosta y Puriscal, Costa Rica. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. pp. 7 - 8 . 228 Jones, J. & N. Price. 1985. Agroforestry: An application of the farming systems approach to forestry. Human Organization, vol. 44(4):322 -331. Kedziora, A., J. Olejnik and J. Kapuscinski. 1989. Impact of landscape structure on heat and water balance. Ecology International No. 17:1-18. Kimber, C. 1966. Dooryard gardens of Martinique. Assoc. of Pacific Coast  Geographers, vol. 28:97-118. . 1973. Spatial patterning in the dooryard gardens of Puerto Rico. The Geographical Review, vol. 63:6-26. Kimmins, J.P. 1987. Forest Ecology. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Krajina, V.J. 1969. Ecology of forest trees in British Columbia. In: Ecology of Western North America (U. of British Columbia, Vancouver) 2:1-147. Lagemann, J. and J. Heuveldop. 1983. Characterization and evaluation of agroforestry systems: The case of Acosta-Puriscal, Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems, vol. 1:101-115. La Nacion. 1987. Editorial, "Lizano clama por reducir l a dependencia externa". San Jose, Costa Rica. Lemckert, A. and J.J. Campos. 1981. Produccion y Consumo de Lena en las Fincas Pequenas de Costa Rica. CATIE, Serie Tecnica, Informe No. 16, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Linares, O. 1976. "Garden hunting" in the American tropics. Human Ecology vol. 4(4):331 - 349. Lungren, B. 1979. Research strategy for soils in agroforestry. In: H.O. Mongi and P.A. Huxley, eds., Soils Research in Agroforestry. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 523 - 538. MacLeod, M.J. 1973. Spanish Central America. A Socioeconomic History, 1520 - 1720. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles. MacDonald, L.H. 1982. Agroforestry in the African Humid Tropics. Proceedings of a Workshop held in Ibadan, Nigeria, 27 April - May. Maffioli, A. & M. Holle. 1982. Caracterizacion del huerto casero tropical en los Cantones de Orotina y San Mateo, Alajuela (Costa Rica). Unpublished Manuscript. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Marten, G. 1986. Traditional Agriculture in Southeast Asia: A Human Ecology Perspective. Westview, London. Michon, G., F. Mary & J. Bompard. 1986. Multistoried agroforestry garden system in West Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems vol. 4:315 - 338. 229 Morales, M. 1982. Interrelaciones entre la urbanizacion y e l creciraiento regional en areas perifericas de Costa Rica; Integracion de formas productivas del campo a la economia de mercado. In: M. Morales & G. Sandner (eds.j, "Regiones Perifericas y ciudades Intermedias en Costa Rica". National University of Costa Rica/University of Hamburg/Hamburg Institute for Iberoamerican Studies, San Jose, Costa Rica. Mijindadi, N.B. and D. Norman. 1984. Efficiency differentials in the traditional agriculture of northern Nigeria. Agricultural Systems, vol. 14:213-228. Myers, N. (Ed.). 1984. GAIA: An Atlas of Planet Management. Anchor PressDoubleday & Company Inc., New York. Nair, M.A. & C. Sreedharan. 1986. Agroforestry farming systems in the homesteads of Kerala, southern India. AgroforestrySystems vol. 4:339 - 363. NAS. 1980. Firewood Crops: Shrub and Tree Species for Energy Production. National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. Navarro, L. 1977. Conocimiento de los sistemas de produccion de cultlivos, el agricultor y su ambiente total. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Nations, J.D. & R.B. Nye. 1980. The evolutionary potential of Lacandon Maya sustained-yield tropical forest agriculture. J. Anthropological  Research, vol. 36(1):1 - 30. Newstrom, L & D. Rhode. 1981. "Huertos caseros" as analogues to the natural ecosystem: A study of six kitchen gardens in three l i f e zones of Costa Rica. Unpublished Report, Organization for Tropical Studies, San Jose, Costa Rica. Nietschmann, B. 1971. The Substance of Subsistence. In: B. Lentek et a l . (Eds.), Geographic Research in Latin America, pp. 167-181. 1973. Between Land and Water: The Subsistence Ecology of the Miskito Indians, Eastern Nicaragua. Seminar Press, New York. Ninez, V. 1987. Household gardens: Theoretical and policy considerations. Agricultural Systems vol. 23:167 - 186. Odum, E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science, vol. 164:262-270. Odum, H.T. and E.C. Odum. 1981. Energy Basis for Man and Nature. McGraw-H i l l , New York. Okigbo, B.N. 1985. Home gardens in tropical Africa. International Workshop on Tropical Home Gardens, Bandung, Indonesia. 22 pp. OPSA. 1979. Manual descriptivo del mapa de asociaciones de sub-grupos de suelos de Costa Rica. Oficina de Planificacion Sectorial Agropecuaria, San Jose, Costa Rica. Pelzer, K.J. 1945. Pioneer settlements in the Asiatic tropics. Am. Geog. Soc., special publication No. 29. 230 Pimentel, D., G. Berardi and S. Fast. 1983. Energy efficiency of farming systems: Organic and conventional agriculture. Agriculture,  Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 9:359-372. Pinchinat, A., L. McLaren, R. Bazan and E. Tai (editors). 1981. Proceedings of the Caribbean Workshop on Traditional and Potential Fruit Tree Crop Development. Office of the Associate Deputy Director General for Rural Development, San Jose, Costa Rica. Pineiro, M., J. Chapman & E. Trigo. 1981. Temas sobre e l desarrollo de tecnologias para pequenos productores campesinos. Desarrollo Rural  en las Americas 13(3):145 - 160. Pinker, R. 1980. The microclimate of a dry tropical forest. Agricultural  Meteorology, vol. 22:249-265. Pinton, F. 1985. The tropical garden as a sustainable food system. A comparison of indians and settlers in northern Colombia. Food and  Nutrition Bulletin. 7(3):25-28. Population Reference Bureau. 1989. World Population Data Sheet. Population  Bulletin. Washington D.C. Price, N.W. 1977. Highland deforestation and approaches to forest recovery in the American tropics. Masters Thesis, York University, Toronto. Price, N.W. 1982. The tropical mixed garden: An agroforestry component of the small farm. In: N. Price (ed.), "Short Course in Agroforestry for the Humid Tropics." CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. Puleston, D.E. 1982. The role of Ramon in Maya subsistence. In* K.V. Flannery (ed.), Maya Subsistence. Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston. Academic Press, New York', pp. 99 - 118. Romero, M.C.E. 1981. Etnobotanica de los huertos familiares en Los Ejidos Habanero 2da Seccion de H. Cardenas y Mantilla de Cundacan, Tabasco, Mexico. Paper presented to UNU/CATIE/CSAT Short Course on Traditional Agroforestry Techniques, Mexico, Nov. 30 - Dec. 10. Ruthenburg, H. 1971. Farming systems in the tropics. In: Systems with perennial crops, pp. 189 - 205. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Rappaport, R.A. 1971. The flow of energy in an agricultural society. Scientific American, vol. 224(3):116-132. Salas, U., et a l . 1983. E l Sector Agropecuaria Costarricense: Un Analisis Dinamico: 1950 - 1980. Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica. Samson, J.A. 1980. Tropical Fruits. Longman, London. Sander, W. 1983. Off-farm employment and income of farmers. Oxford  Agrarian Studies, Issue 12:34-47. Schahczenski, J.J. 1984. Energetics and traditional agricultural systems: A review. Agricultural Systems, vol. 14:31-43. Sellers, S. 1976. Tipos de agricultores en Tucurrique, Costa Rica. Turrialba, Costa Rica. 231 . 1983. Perennial intercropping as practiced by small fanners in Costa Rica. (Unpublished Manuscript). SEPSA. 1982. Informacion basica del sector agropecuario y de recursos naturales renovables de Costa Rica. Numero 2. Secretaria Ejecutiva de Planificacion Sectoral Agropecuaria, San Jose, Costa Rica. Shaner, W.W., P.F; Philipp, and W.R. Schmel. 1982. Farming Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for developing countries. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Sheets, P.D. 1982. Prehistoric agricultural systems in E l Salvador. In: K.V. Flannery (ed.), Maya Subsistence. Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston. Academic Press, New York. pp. 99 - 118. Soemarwoto, O., et a l . 1975. The Javanese home-garden as an integrated agro-ecosystem. Intern. Congress of Scientists on the Human Environment, Nov. 16-26. Kyoto, Japan. Sommers, P. 1978. Traditional home gardens of selected Philippine households and their potential for improving human nutrition. MS Thesis, University of the Philippines, at Los Banos. Soria V., J. 1976. Los sistemas de agricultura en e l Istmo Centroamericano. Rev._Biol.Trop. vol. 24 (Supl.):57 - 68. Soto, M.F. 1987. Personal communication. San Jose, Costa Rica. Spencer, J.E. 1966. Shifting Cultivation in Southeastern Asia. University of California. Publications in Geography vol. 19. Steiner, K.G. 1982. Intercropping in Tropical Smallholder Agriculture with Special Reference to West Africa. Schriftenreihe der GT2 No. 137, Eschborn. Stoler, A. 1978. Garden use and household economy in rural Java. Bulletin  of Indonesian Economic Studies. 14(2):85 - 101. Strahler, A.H. 1978. Binary discriminant analysis: A new method for investigating species-environment relationships. Ecology vol. 59(1):108 - 116. Sumner, D.A. 1982. The off-farm labor supply of farmers. American J.  Agricultural Economics vol. 64(3):499 - 509. Terra, G.J.A. 1953. Mixed garden horticulture in Java. Malaysian J. of  Agric.. vol. 1:33 - 43. . 1954. Mixed garden horticulture in Java. Malayan Journal of Tropical Geography, vol. 3:33-43. Trenbath, B.R. 1974. Biomass productivity of mixtures. Adv. Aqron., vol. 26:177 - 210. Troutner, M. n.d. The homestead area in Costa Rica: An efficient agro-ecosystem. Unpublished Report. C.A.T.I.E., Turrialba, Costa Rica. UNU/IOE/CATIE. 1985. International workshop on tropical mixed gardens, Bandung, Indonesia. December 2 - 9 . 232 UNU/UP/UCR. 1987. Second international workshop on tropical mixed gardens, San Jose, Costa Rica. August 31 - Sept. 4. Wagner, P.L. 1958. Nicoya: A Cultural Geography. University of California Publication in Geography, 12(3):195-250. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Webb, L.J. et a l . 1977. Structural classification as a method to predict site potential in the development and conservation of tropical humid forest lands. In: Transactions of the International MAB-IUFRO Workshop on Tropical Rainforest Ecosystems Research, Hamburg-Reinbek. May 12-17. pp. 132-148. White, Jr., L. 1969. The historical roots of our ecologic c r i s i s . In: P. Shepard and D. McKinley (eds.), The Subversive Science. NY: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, pp. 341-350. Wiersum, K.F. 1982. Tree gardening and taungya in Java: Examples of agroforestry techniques in the humid tropics. Agroforestry Systems vol. 1:53 - 70. Wilson, J. Warren. 1965. stand structure and light penetration. I. Analysis by point quadrats. J. Appl. Ecol., vol. 2:383-390. Woodbridge, G. 1987. Editorial, "Exportaciones: Clave del Progreso". La Nacion, Friday, September 4th. San Jose, Costa Rica. Workshop Agro-forestry systems in Latin America, Turrialba, Costa Rica. 1979. Proceedings. Edited by G. De las Salas. Turrialba, CATIE. 226 pp. 233 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Survey questionnaire form 234 Appendix 2. Figures Al - A36 244 Appendix 3. Table Al 281 Appendix 4. Tables A2 - A5 285 Appendix 5. Table A6 291 Appendix 6. Table A7 294 Appendix 7. Tables A8 and A9 296 Appendix 8. Table A10 301 Appendix 9. Selected plans of Costa Rican mixed gardens 303 Appendix 10. L i s t of English names and Latin binomials for mixed garden species on the six farming system case studies 321 Appendix 11. Temperature and humidity measurements from Pitahaya de Puntarenas, Costa Rica 324 Appendix 12. Results of a study of weed productivity in tropical mixed gardens 326 Appendix 13. Mean monthly l i t t e r f a l l for six mixed gardens distributed between two contrasting l i f e zones 342 Appendix 14. Summary of s o i l analyses for different agroecosystems on the six case study farms 344 Appendix 15. Root biomass for six mixed gardens distributed between two contrasting l i f e zones 346 Appendix 16. Summary of the cultural energy balance for the different agroecosystems on the different farms 348 Appendix 17. Calorific values for the different materials used or produced on the case study farms 367 Appendix 18. Lis t of standardized weights for the different products from the agroecosystems on the case study farms 369 Appendix 19. Farm income and expenses for the six case studies, 1983-1984 371 Appendix 20. Price l i s t for goods produced on the farm. Values derived from sales or observations in local markets 278 Appendix 21. Cash-flow budgets for the six case studies, 1983-1984 380 Appendix 22. Relative economic performance of cropping systems on each of the case studies 396 A P P E N D I X 1 Survey questionnaire form CENTRO AGFCTBQMICO TBDPICM. DE IHVESTIGACION Y ENSENANZA Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables Turrialba, Costa Rica Huerto Casero Como Componente Integral de Fincas (Pequenas) Estudios I n i c i a l del Huerto Casero (Cuestionario Confidencial) 1982 236 DESCRjPCl'ON DE : SITI0S 01 9 / 0 / 1 / ok H / u / e / r / t / o / M / i / x / t / o / C/o/m/o/ C / o / m / p / o/ n / e / n / t / e / 1 / n / t / e / g / r / a / 1 / d/e/ F / i / n / c / a / s / P7e7q/u/e/n/a7s/ ~ ~ ~ 06 F/n7c7u7e7s7t7a7 I7n7i7c7i7a7l7 ~ 7B T i / 2 / 0 / C o d i g o d e l P r o y e s t o 01 9 / 0 / 2 / Ok CTO/S/T/A/ R/1/C/A/ ]k ~ r r r n / 7777 / / / / 1 1 P r o v i n c i a 2 8 11 / r r r r r r r r r r r r / Canton kl 111111111111 n n D i s t r i t o 75 I I I • • - C o d i g o de l a F i n c a 78 01 9 / 0 / 3 / Ok / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / L o c a l i d a d IC i t / i i / Zona de V i d a - H o l d r i d g e 2k V M/o/r/a/ E n c u e s t a d o r ( a ) 31 W / P / r / i / c / e / O bservador 39 / / / / / / Fecha kG r/ / r/ /////////// f D i r e c c i o n y d i s t a n c i a a l p u b l o mas c e r c a n o 75 1 / I C o d i g o de l a F i n c a 78 F / 2 / 0 / 01 9 / 0 A / Ok / R e l f e v e : p l a n o ( l ) , i n c l i n a d o ( 2 ) , o n d u l a d o ( 3 ) , quebrado ( t 0 , e s c a r p a d o ( 5 ) 0 5 _/ A s p e c t o : N ( 1 ) , E ( 2 ) , S ( 3 ) , 0 ( 4 ) , o t r o s ( 5 ) 06 1 / 1 / E J e v a c i o n (Mas i 1) 10 / / / / / / L a t i t u d 18 / / / / / / L o n g i t u d 75 / / / Co d i g o de l a f i n c a 7 8 F/2/0/ 237 Clima Pluviosidad (mm) Anos de observacion" "Enero, febrero marzo, a b r i l mayo, junio j u l i o , agosto setiembre, octubre noviembre, diciembre total/ano Codigo finca (ej. 1948-80=4880mm) Temperatua media mensual (°C) Anos de observacion Enero, febrero marzo, ab r i l mayo, junio j u l i o , agosto setiembre, octubre noviembre, diciembre Altitud Codigo finca 0 n 0 6 2 8 i+ 5 8 9/0/7/ _/_/_/  JJJ Temperatura maxima promedio mensual (°C) Enero, febrero marzo, ab r i l mayo, junio j u l i o , agosto setiembre, octubre noviembre, diciembre "Codigo finca Temperatura minima promedio mensual °C Enero, febrero marzo, a b r i l mayo, junio j u l i o , agosto setioniire, octubre noviembre, diciembre 3/2/0/ 238 01 Ok 10 26 75 78 9/0/9/ I I I I I I 111 r r i 1111111111 r r r r r i ~ r r i F/2/0/ C o d i g o de l a e s t a c i o n m e t e o r D i s t a n c i a a l a e s t a c i o n m e t e o r , mas c e r c a n a N o m b r e de l a e s t a c i o n C o d i g o d e l a f f n c a C o d i a o 01 9/1/0/ S u e l o s : 0k ~ r r P e d r o g o s i d a d % 06 ~r p e l i g r o d e i n u n d a n i o n e s : a l t a ( l ) , media (2) 07 i tipo de s u e l o : r e s i d u a l ( l ) , c o l u v i a l ( 2 ) , a l u v i a l ( 3 ) 16 ~i H u m e d a d : s a t u r a d o ( l ) , muy h u r i e d o ( 2 ) , h u m e d o ( 3 ) , s e c o ( ^ ) 17 i D r e n a j e : e x c e s i v o ( l ) , buen(2), i m p e r f e c t o ( 3 ) , m a l o ^ ) 18 i E r o s i o n : p l u v i a l ( l ) , v i e n t o ( 2 ) 19 j E r o s i o n : s i n o muy l e v e ( l ) , m o d e r a d o ( 2 ) , s e v e r a ( 3 ) muy several) 20 I I I _/ C o m p a c c i o n (kg/cm2) 2k i C o l o r : r o j o ( 1 ) , p a r d o ( 2 ) , m e g r o ( 3 ) , g r i s ( A ) , o t r o ( 5 ) 75 I I I C o d i g o d e l a f i n c a 78 75/2/0/ 01 9/1/1/ H i d r o l o g f a ok ~r~ L a g o ( 1 ) , e s t a n q u e ( 2 ) , c i e n e g a ( 3 ) / / / R f o ( n o m b r e ) 05 I I I / / / 11 13 / A r r o y o : p e r m a n e n t e ( 1 ) , i n t e r m i t e n t e ( 2 ) 20 i Z a n j a : n a t u r a l (1 ) , a r t i f i c i a l ( 2 ) 21 i A n c h o : O ,5m ( l ) , <5m(2) , < 10m(3) , > 10, (4) 22 / D i r e c c i o n d e l f l u j o t) (1 ) S(*> £(~z> O(H) /VJ?<I~) IVO( t>) S<?C0) 23 i R e l a c i o n a l h u e r t o : c r u z a ( l ) , a l l a d o ( 2 ) , p a r a l e l o ( 3 ) 2k i V a r i a c i o n de n i v e l : s f O ) , n0(2) 25 ~i A g u a e n c h a r c a d a : s f ( l ) , no(2) 26 i F u e n t e : l l u v i a l j l ) , i n u n d a c i o n ( 2 ) , a c u T f e r o ( 3 ) 27 ~III _/ A r e a ( n ) 31 i r~ P r o f u n d i d a d ( m ) 75 ~~ri i C o d i g o d e l a f i n c a 78 ±12101 01 9/1/2/ A g r i c u l t o r y f a m i l i a Bk ~rn / / / 11 I 1 1 I 1 N o m b r e d e l a g r i c u l t o r 18 11 E d a d 20 11 N u m e r o d e p e r s o n a s q u e v i v e n e n l a f i n c a 22 n N u m e r o d e p e r s o n a l q u e v i v e n f u e r a d e l a finca 2* 11 P r o c e d e n c i a : L a t i n e ( 1 ) , E u r o p e a ( 2 ) , A m e r i c a n a ( 3 ) 26 r i A f i o s d e v i v i r e n l a f i n c a 28 11 / i N u m e r o d e hijos d e 0-14 afios (ambos s e x o s ) 30 11 ~7~ 7 N u m e r o d e hijos d e 14-18 afios ( a m b o s s e x o s ) 32 r i "f / N u m e r o d e h i j o s mayores d e 18 afios (ambos s e x o s ) 3k 11 r / P a r i e n t e s mayores 35 i I n f o r m a n t e : agricultorO) , e s p o s a ( 2 ) , h i j o ( 3 ) 75 ~i 11 C o d i g o d e l a f i n c a 78 1/2/0/ 239 0 1 9/1/3/ ) "Mano de Obra" 0 4 / / Agricultor (cuantos meses trabaja en l a finca) 0 6 / / Esposa 0 8 / / 1 Varones 14 afios (Numero y meses) 1 1 / /" 1 Mujeres 14 afios ( " y " ) 1 4 / / 1 Nifios 14 afios ( " y " ) 1 7 / /" J Peones ( " y " ) 2 0 / Falta mano de obra en alguna? mes: si(1)6 No(2) 2 1 / / I / / / / / Que mes? 6 meses? Enero(1), febrero(2), marzo(3), abril(4), mayo(5), junio(6), julio(7), agosto(8), setiembre(9), octubre(10), noviembre (11), diciembre(12) 2 9 J Trabaja usted? o algun miembro de su familia afuera de l a finca? s i ( l ) , No(2) 3 0 1 1 I / / / / / Miembro de l a familia agricultor(01) esposa(02) varon 10 (11) hembra 10 (12) varon -15 (13) hembra -15 (14) varon 15+ (15) hembra 15+ (16) 3 8 1 I 1 / / / / / En que? Agricultura(11), montes(12) pesca(13), artesania(14) industria(15), comercio(16) servicios(17), govermento(18) otro (19) 4 6 I / 1 / / / / / Meses de trabajo fuera de l a finca 7 5 III Codigo de l a finca 7 8 8/2/0/ 0 1 9/1/4/ Productos Principales 0 4 JJJ JJJ Cuales son los primeros fen importancia) tres productos de su finca? (vea codigos de cultivos) 1 3 III I / / / 1 II _/. _/ Su produccion en kg es? 2 5 1 1 I / / ' 7 / / " En que epoca se vende? (1-12) 3 1 III J / / / / / / ./_ / Cuanta superficie tiene sembrada? 4 3 III / / / 'III' Que porcion (%) consumen en l a casa? 5 2 III JJJ JJJ Que otros productos produce la finca? 7 5 III Codigo de l a finca 7 8 8/2/0/ 0 1 9/1/5/ — — .......... — G a p i t a l - — - . . 0 4 III / / / I l l Fertilizantes: s i ( l ) No(2) 0 5 1 1 1 JJJ JJJ Para que cultivos? (ver codigo cultivos) 1 4 1 Semilla mejorada: s i ( l ) No(2) 1 5 III _/_/_/ JJJ Que tipo? 2 4 / Herbicidas: s i ( l ) No(2) 2 5 III / / / III Para que cultivos? 3 4 1 Insecticidas cultivos: s i ( l ) No(2) 3 5 1 Insecticidas animales: s i ( l ) No(2) 3 6 1 Fungicidas ( s i ( l ) No(2) 3 7 I Riego: s i ( l ) No(2) 3 8 III Otro: 7 5 III Codigo de l a finca i 7 e 8/2/0/ I 240 0 1 9/1/6/ Tenencia 0 4 / Es l a Finca suya? s i ( l ) No(2) 0 5 / Trabaja l a finca en medieria(D"~por alquiler(2) 0 6 / / Cual es su tamafio completo? (manzanas) 0 8 / Cuanto terreno tiene alquilado? 0 9 JJ _/_/ De toda su finca que parte esta en: Cultivos Perennes, Cultivos Anuales 1 3 I I / / Pastos, bosque y sin usar 1 7 1 I / / rastrojo, dada en medieria 2 1 I 1 _/_/ Dada en alquiler, otro 7 5 I I I Codigo de l a finca 7 8 8/2/0/ 0 1 9/1/7/ Huerto mixto 0 4 _/ Ocupa el area alrededor de su casa para arboles frutales y otras plantas utiles? Si(]) No (2) 0 5 _/ Usa: Fertilizante quimico en el huerto? Si(l) No(2) 0 6 I I I _/_/_ J Para que plantas? 1 5 / Semilla mejorada: s i ( l ) No(2) 1 6 / / / _/_/_ J Que tipo? 2 5 _/ Biocidas: herbicidas (1) Insecticidas (2) fungicidas (3) 2 6 / Riego: s i ( l ) No (2) 2 7 _/ Desechos de l a casa u otra actividad. s£(l) No(2) Tiene usted algun concepto de "Mai o buen monte" si ( l ) No(2) 2 8 I I I I I I I I I / / / /" / F 1 7 7 Cuales son ,!buenas"; ,:malas" (Vea codigos) _ I I I JJ. ./ 5 2 I I Que edad tiene su huerto? 5 4 I Maneja su huerto con algun fin? s i ( l ) No(2) 5 5 I I I I 1 / / / / Con que especies empezo su huerto? 6 4 I I I JJ. _/ JJ. _/ 7 5 I I I Codigo de l a finca 7 8 8/2/0/ 0 1 9/1/8/ Mano de obra en huerto Cuantos dias/meses trabaja en el huerto? 0 4 / / Agricultor 0 6 / / Esposa 0 8 / / Hijos (numero + dias) 1 1 / / 1 I / / / /' JJ Equipo usado en el huerto. (Vea codigo) 2 1 / / I 1 / 7 /" / / / Equipo usado en el huerto. 7 5 I I I Codigo de l a finca 7 8 8/2/0/ 241 . r 919 H u e r t o D i s p e r s o C o d i g o F i n c a : No. S p e c t e U s o C a n t i d a d C u i d o D i s t a n c l a V e n d e ? C u a h d o C o s e c h a C o d i g o s : U s o : alimento f a m i l i a r ( l ) , me c i n a l ( 2 ) , M e d i c i n a l a n i m a l ( 3 ) , lena/construccionC^), alimento a n i m a l ( 5 ) , poste d e c e r c a ( 6 ) , — s o m b r a ( 7 ) , u s o domestic©(9) ' -C u i d o : s f = 1 . no=2 c-V e n d e : s i = 1 , no=2 9 2 0 H u e r t o M i x t o C o d i g o F i n c a : N o m b r e M u m e r o C o s e c h a U s o V e n d e P r » c e d e n c i a I m p o r t a n c i a C o d i g o : U s o : a l i m e n t o f a m i l i a r ( l ) , M e d i c i n a ( 2 ) , M e d i c i n a l a n i m a l ( 3 ) , l e n a / c o n s t r u c c i o n ( A ) , a l i m e n t o a n i m a l ( 5 ) , p o s t e d e c e r c a ( 6 ) , s o m b r a ( 7 ) , u s o d o m e s t i c o ( 9 ) . V e n d e : S f = 1 , N o = 2 P r o c e d e n c i a : v e c i n o ( l ) , M A G ( 2 ) , C o m p r a d o ( 3 ) , o t r o ( A ) I m p o r t a n c i a : muy i m p o r t a n t e ( l ) , m o d e r a d a ( 2 ) , n o i m p o r t a n t e ( 3 ) C o s e c h a : e n e r o ( O l ) , f e b ( 0 2 ) , m a r ( 0 3 ) , a b r ( O ^ ) , m a y o ( 0 5 ) , j u n i o ( 0 6 ) , j u l i o ( 0 7 ) , a g o s t o ( O o ) , s e p t ( 0 9 ) , O c t ( l O ) , n o v ( H ) , d e c ( l 2 ) < 2 4 ~ 926 E s t r u c t u r a l V e r t i c a l C o d i g o F i n c a : v ' m e t r o s p e c i e a l t u r a c o p a 1 . c o p a 2 f u s t e d i s t . a l a r b o i mas c e r c a n o A P P E N D I X 2 Figures Al - A36 245 Figure A l . Template for Figures A2 - A36, shoving Between-LIfe-Zone and Wlthin-Life-Zone differences as indicated by Box & Whisker diagrams. Minimum Maximum Trop i ca l Dry Fores t T rop i ca l Mois t Fores t T rop ica l Wet Fores t T rop i ca l Premontane Wet Fo res t , T r a n s i t i o n T r o p i c a l Premontane Wet Forest Min TDF Canas Pi tahaya Cabo Blanco Max Min 00.00 TMF Hojancha San Mateo/Orotlna P t o . Vargas 00.00 TWF Herradura/Jaco P t o . V l e j o , Saraplqul Guapi les 00.00 QQ-QQ 00.00 TPWF,T Cludad Cortes R i o F r i o SI q u i r r e s TPWF Rivas P u r i s c a l Grec ia /Sa rch i Max JQQ.0I B e t w e e n - L I f e - Z o n e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e shown In the top f i g u r e , w h i l e Wl th ln-LIfe -Zone d i f fe rences ( I . e . between survey loca t ions w i t h i n a given l i f e zone) are Indicated for each l i f e zone, In the f i v e lower f i g u r e s . The median of the batch Is marked by a + s i g n . The lower & upper hinges are a t the l e f t & r i g h t edges of the box, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The whiskers denote the adjacent (usua l ly outermost) v a l u e s . Outside values are marked with an * and far ou t s ide values are marked with an 0 . Brackets represent 95% confidence i n t e r v a l s . 246 Figure A'2.Bo« plots of "Farmer Age", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, median and 95? confidence Intervals. 18.00 83.00 18.00 19.00 - ( --(• ) 80.00 29.00 78.00 18.00 83.00 79.00 23.00 78.00 247. Figure A3. Box plots of "Years on Fane", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, M e d i a n and 95? confidence Intervals. 00 01.00 70.00 00.00 -(-50.00 70.00 00.25 50.00 - ( - • ) •248 ( — — — — — — ^ — — — • ^ — — — — — — ^ Figure A4. Box plots of "On-Fare Faa! ly" , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, Median and 95< confidence intervals. 01.00 14.00 01.00 12.00 01.00 11.00 00 02.00 14.00 01.00 "TT.'OO .( 249 Figure A5. Box plots of "Off-Far* Fanily», grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, median and 959 confidence Intervals. 00.00 10.00 T 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 o 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 0 0 04.00 00.00 07.00 00 00 09.00 07,0i I 00.00 10.00 250 Figure A6. Box plots of "Females < 14 yr" , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, median and 95? confidence intervals. 00.00 06.00 •) ( • t ( ) ( ) 00.00 04.00 00.00 04.00 00 00 03.00 00.00 06.00 251 Figure A7. Box plots of "Males < 14 yr" , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, aedlan and 95f confidence Intervals. 00.00 05.00 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) _ ( .) 00.00 04.00 00.00 05.00 ( ) * * • ) ( ) ... I 00.00 03.00 00.00 05.00 00.00 04.00 ( ) ( _) 252 i Figure A8. Box plots of "Feaale 14—18 yr" , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, median and 95} confidence intervals. 00.00 03.00 00.00 03.00 00.00 02.00 t J 0 0 0 ) 00.00 02.00 00.00 ( — ) ) { > .0 ) • ) { 0 02.00 00.00 02.00 253 F i g u r e A 9 . Box p l o t s o f " M a l e s 14-18 y r " , g r o u p e d by s u r v e y l o c a t i o n and l i f e z o n e , s h o w i n g the r a n g e , Median and 9 5 ? c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s . 00.00 04.00 00.00 04.00 00.00 02 .0) ) • ) t ) 00.00 04.00 00.00 [ 0 0 0 ( ) ) 03.00 00.00 03.00 ) t | 0 0 ) 254 Figure A10. Box plots of "Females > 18 yr " , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, aedian and 95t confidence Intervals. 00.00 03.00 00.00 02.00 00.00 03.00 00.00 ) t * ) i 0 02.00 00.00 03.00 00.00 03.00 255 Figure A l l , Box plots of "Males > 18 yr" , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shotting the range, median and 95? confidence intervals . 00.00 05.00 00.00 04.00 00.00 05.00 03.00 00.00 03.00 00.00 04.00 256 Figure A12. Box plots of "Fan Size ( h a ) " , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, snowing the range. M e d i a n and 95% confidence Intervals. 00.00 15.29 14.30 00.00 10.00 14.00 00.05 05.71 00.50 15.29 Figure A13. Box plots of "Total Area (ha)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, median and 95< confidence Intervals. 00.00 18.50 00.71 10.00 00, 00.00 14.00 00.36 00.54 15.29 7258 i — — Figure AM. Box plots of "Perennial Crops (ha)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, aedlan and 95? confidence Intervals. 00.00 10.00 * 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 t t 00.00 04.64 00.00 10.00 00.00 •) t t 09.00 05.00 . ,. 1 — * - t 0 ( .) 00.00 Off .00 t t 7259 i Figure A15. Box plots of "Perennial Crops (%), grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, andIan and 95? confidence intervals. 00.00 100.00 00.00 00.00 Eh 100.00 00.00 100.00 ) I 0 t t 0 0 0 100.00 00.00 0 0 -) 100.00 00.00 100.00 .260 i Figure A16. Box plots of "Annual Crops (ha)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, and I an and 95? confidence Intervals. 00.00 05.48 00.00 05.48 00.00 04.0C 05.00 00.00 00.00 05.00 1 1 ) ( •) t t 261 Figure AI7. Box plots of "Annual Crops It)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, Median and 95Jf confidence Intervals. 00.00 100.00 00.00 95.97 00.00 57.14 14 00.00 0 0 0 0 0 00.00 100.00 • ) — t 0 ) — 1 1 ) 262 Figure A18. Box plots of "Pasture (ha)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, Med ian and 95? confidence Intervals. 00.00 13.81 t t 0 r '0 0 0 0 00 0 t 00 o - 0 0-" 11.52 00.00 09.50 09.00 ( • — ) -Eh t t 00.00 13.81 263 i — F i g u r e A19 . Box p l o t s o f " P a s t u r e ( ? ) " , g r o u p e d by s u r v e y l o c a t i o n and l i f e z o n e , s h o v i n g t h e r a n g e . B e d I a n and 955 c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s . 00.00 100.00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t t t tt t 00.00 00.00 0 0 100.00 00.00 95.00 80.03 00.00 79.44 t t 00.00 97.60 ( 1 -)— 264 F i g u r e A20. Box p l o t s o f " W o o d l o t ( h a ) " , g r o u p e d by s u r v e y l o c a t i o n and l i f e z o n e , s h o w i n g t h e r a n g e , Med ian and 95? c o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s . 00.00 08.25 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 r 00.00 03.92 00.00 06 .7 ! 02.14 00.3H 00.00 08.25 265 Figure A21. Box plots of "Follow (ha)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range. BadIan and 95? confidence Intervals. 07.86 00.00 03.34 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 07.86 266 Figure A22. Box plots of •Rented Out (ha)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range. M e d i a n and 95% confidence Intervals. 00.00 0 0 08.93 00.00 00.00 08.93 00.00 07.14 00.00 01.0C 00.0C 00.00 00.00 -267 Figure A23. Box plots of *e<lxed Garden (ha)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, M e d i a n and 95$ confidence Intervals. 00.00 - ( •) t t LT-t t t t 0 0 02.00 00.00 00.00 - f 01.07 00.00 1 j 1 . • ) 01.50 00.00 02.00 00.71 00.00 01.43 I—l . - J t t 268 Figure A24. Box plots of "Mixed Garden (?) " , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, wedI an and 95? confidence Intervals. t 0 00.00 100.00 Er 0 0 ttt E h -00.00 00.00 ED-100.00 00.00 D * 0 100.00 00.00 h 100.00 100.00 h 00.00 100.00 ) — t 2.69 j — ^ F i g u r e A 2 5 . Box p l o t s o f " M i x e d Garden A g e " , g r o u p e d by s u r v e y l o c a t i o n and l i f e z o n e , s h o w i n g t h e r a n g e , med ian and 9 5 * c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s . 0 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 0 0 » 0 0 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 0 0 ( • ) * t -( • ) * 0 t J 0 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 270 F i g u r e A 2 6 . Box p l o t s o f " M i x e d Garden S p e c i e s " , g r o u p e d by s u r v e y l o c a t i o n and l i f e z o n e , s h o w i n g t h e r a n g e , med ian and 95% c o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l s . 00.00 46.00 ( • ) t t ( • ) ( ) ( • ) ( • •)-00.00 -) t f Y) L i 00.00 37.00 00.00 40.00 46.00 00 ( • 00.00" 3 8 . 0 0 271 Figure A27. Box plots of "01spersad Garden Species", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, Median and 95% confidence Intervals. .00.00 66.00 00.00 41.00 00.00 37.00 66.00 00.00 EG-40.00 00.00 39.00 -(- • ) 272 Figure A28. Box plots of "Number of Trees", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, Median and 95? confidence Intervals. 00.00 270.00 t 0 a—• 11 o 03.00 02.00 270.00 08.00 ( • ) -1 108.00 00.00 4 a > 87.00 40.00 03.00 63.00 273 Figure A29 . Box plots of "No. Species In St ra ta l " , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, median and 95% confidence Intervals. 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 - ) -0 0 . 0 0 - ) --(-0 6 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 7 . 0 0 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 9 . 0 0 274 Figure A30. Box plots of "No. Species in Strata2", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, andI an and 95? confidence Intervals. 00.00 15.00 00.00 00.00 11.00 00.00 12.00 15.00 00.00 (—I ) ( 1 ( ) 0 10.oc 00.00 13.00 275: Figure A31. Box plots of "No. Species In Strota3", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, M e d i a n and 95? confidence intervals. 00.00 27.00 01.00 01.00 -(• • ) -GZZE 25.00 03.00 27.00 00.00 19.00 10.0C 02.00 •»;oo 276 Figure A32. Box plots of "No. Species In Strata*" , grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, median and 95% confidence Intervals. 00.00 07.00 00.00 00.00 ) 06.00 01.00 06.00 07.00 00.00 05.00 00.00 06.00 277 Figure A33. Box plots of 'Wlxed Garden Labour:Farmer (8 hr-days)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, madIan and 95% confidence Intervals. 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 90.00 00.00 104.00 00.00 im 144.00 120.00 00.00 T567?0 ) 278 Figure A34. Box plots of "Mixed Garden Labour:Wife (8 hr-days)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing the range, M e d i a n and 95f confidence Intervals. 00.00 00.00 72.00 00.00 78.00 144.00 00.00 78.00 279 Figure A35. Box plots of "Mixed Garden Labour:Chi Idren (8 hr-days)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, shoving the range, M e d i a n and 955 confidence Intervals. 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 156.00 00.00 24.00 00.00 48.00 52.00 00.00 36.00 0 0 280 Figure A36. Box plots of "Mixed Garden Labour:0ttier (8 hr-days)", grouped by survey location and l i f e zone, showing t h e range, Med ian and 95? confidence Intervals. 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 90.00 A P P E N D I X 3 Types of off-farm employment by small farmers and family members by l i f e zone. Table A l . Types of off-farm employment by small farmers and family members by lifezone. TDF TMF JOB CODES1 JOB CODES 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Farmer 26 - - - - 2 1 2 2 10 - - - - 2 1 1 1 Wife _ _ _ _ _ _ ! _ _ 1 - - - - 1 - - -Brother _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i _ In-laws _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 - -Males < 10 yrs - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Females < 10 yrs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Males 10-15 yrs 1 - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Females 10-15 yrs _ _ _ _ _ _ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Males > 15 yrs 7 1 - - 1 - 4 2 - 8 - - - - - - - -Females > 15 yrs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 - - - - - 1 -ll=agri c u l t u r e ; 12=forestry; 13=fishing; 14=handicrafts; 15=industry; 16=commerce; 17=services; 18=government; 19=other. Table A l . (continued) TPWF,T JOB CODES1 JOB CODES 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Farmer 10 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 11 - 2 - 1 1 -Wife - - - - - 1 - 2 - - - - - - - 1 -Brother _ _ _ _ 1 - - - -In-laws 1 - - - - 1 - -Males < 10 yrs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Females < 10 yrs Males 10-15 yrs ! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Females 10-15 yrs Males > 15 yrs 8 - - - 1 2 1 - - 8 - - - 1 - 3 -Females > 15 yrs _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 - - - - - - - - 1 -1 l l = a g r i c u l t u r e ; 12 =forestry; 13=fishing; 14=handicrafts; 15 = industry; 16=commerce; 17-services; 18=government; 19=other. TWF to ca f u> Table A l . (continued) TPWF JOB CODES1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Farmer 7 - - - - 1 1 1 1 Wife 1 - - - - -Brother In-laws Males < 10 yrs Females < 10 yrs Males 10-15 yrs Females 10-15 yrs Males > 15 yrs 11 - 1 3 -Females > 15 yrs - - - - - 2 1 2 -1 l l = a g r i c u l t u r e ; 12=forestry; 13=fishing; 17=services; 18=government; 19=other. 14=handicrafts; 15=industry; 16=commerce; A P P E N D I X 4 Tables A2 - A5: Mixed garden plant species Table A2: Mixed garden plan- species i n strata 1 (0.0 - 1.0 m) Common Name Scientific Name Albahaca Ocimum basilicum L. Altimisa Chrysanthemum parthenlum (L.) Ajenjo Artemisia Vulgaris L. Apio Apium graveolans L. Arracacha Arracacia zanthorrhiz Arrowroot/Sagu Maranta arundinacea L. Arroz Oryza sativa L. Ayote/Pipian/chamol Cucurbita pepo L. Azul de Mata Jacobinia tinctoria (Aerst.) Mensl. Calabaza Cucurbita sp. Camote Ipomea batata L. Culantro Coriandurm sativum L. Culantro Coyote Eryngium foetidum L. Escobilia Sida rhombifolia L. Fresa Fragaria vesca L. F r i j o l Cubaces Phaseolus lunatus L. F r i j o l Comun Phaseolus vulgaris L. Gavilana N/A Hierba Buena Mentha citrata Ehrh. Jengibre Zingiber officinale Roscoe Juanilama Lippia alba (Mill.) N.E. Brown Lechuga Lactuca sativa L. Malva N/A Mani Arachis hypogaea L. Menta Menta spp. Mpstaza Brassica juncea (L.) Coss. Oregano Origanum vulgare L. Rabano Raphanus sativus L. Repollo Brassica oleracea var. capitat Romero Rosmarinus officinalis L. Ruda Ruta chalapensis L. Salvia Buddleia americana Sandia Citrullus vulgaris Schrad. Savila Aloe vera L. Sorosi Momordica charantia L. Tabaco Nicotiana tabacum L. Tabacon Anthurium crassinervium (Jacq.) Schott Tonka Benicassa hispida (Thumb.) Cogn. Zacate Limon Cympopogon citratus (D.C.) Stapf. Zacate Limon Frances N/A Zanahoria Daucus carota L. Table A3: Mixed garden plant species in strata 2 (1.0- 3.0 m) Common Name Scientific Name Achiote Alacrancillo Algodon Amapola Apazote Cacao Cafe Cana de Azucar Cereza Silvestre Chan Chayote Chile Dulce Chile Picante Clavos Cocona Cojombro Estococo F r a i l e c i l l o Gandui/Prijol de Palo Gotasamargas Granadilla Hoja de Estrella Licorice Lianten Maiz Malanga Maravilla Naranjilla Name Nampi Paste/Estopa Pepino Pichichio R a i c i l l o Saragundi Sauco Sorgo Tacaco Tiguisque Tomate Trigo Vainica Vaquiary Yuca Zo r r i l l o Bixa orellana L. Dalea costaricana Rydberg Gossyplum peruvianum Cav. Diss. Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. Chenopodium ambrosoides L. Theobroma cacao L. Coffea arabica L. Saccharum officinarum L. N/A Hyptis suaveolans (L.) Poit. Sechium edule (Jacq.) Sw. Capsicum annum L. Capsicum frutescens L. Syzgium aromaticum (L.) Kerr. & Solanum topiro Humb. & Bonpl. N/A Passifiora spp. Jatropha gossypiifolia L. Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth N/A Passifiora quadrangularis L. Piper auritum HBK Glycyrrhiza glabra L. Plantago major L. Zea mays Colocasia asculenta (L.) Schott Mirabilis jalapa L. Solanum quitioense Lam Dioscorea spp. Xanthosoma spp. Luffa cylindrica (L.) Roem. Cucurbita sativus L. Solanum mammosum L. Psychotria emetica L.f. Cassia reticulata Willd. Sambucus mexicana Presl. Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench Polakowskla tacaco Pittier Xanthosoma sagittifblium Schott Lycospersicum esculenta Mill. Triticum aestivum L. Vigna spp. N/A Manihot esculenta L. N/A Perry 298 • Table A4: Mixed garden plant species i n strata 3 (3.0 - 15.0 m) Common Name Scientific Name Almendro 'iTerminalia catappa L. Man. Anona \Annona reticulata L. Anonillo N/A Aceituno Simarouba glauca DC Achiotillo Vismia guianensis (Aubl.) Pers. Arco Myrospermum frutescens Jacq. Balsa Ochroma pyrimidale (Cav.) Urban Bambu Bambusa spp. Caimito Chrysophyllum cainito L. Canelo Nectandra salicifolia Canilla de Mula N/A Carao Cassia grandis L.F. Carambola Averrhoa carambola L. Cas Psidium friedrichsthalianum (Berg.) Niedenzu Castano Castanea sativa Mill. Cocobolo Dalbergia retusa Hemsley Cortez Amarillo Tabebuia chrysantha (Jacq.) Nicholson Coyol Acrocomia vinifera Oerst. Chicasguil Jatropha multifida L. Cuajiniguil Inga spp. Cucaracha B i l l i a colombiana Pl. & Lindl. Durazno Pruns persica (L.) Sieb. & Zucc. Fruta de Pan Artocarpus cummunis Forst. Grosella Phyllanthus acidus Skeels Guacalito N/A Guachipilin Diphysa robinoides Benth. Guacimo Guazuma uimifolia Lam. Guanabana Annona muricata L. Guaitil Genipa spp. Guapinol Hymenaea courbaril L. Guarumo Cecropia spp. Guava Inga spp. Guayabo Psidium guajava L. Guitite Acnistus arborescens (L.) Higuerilla Ricinus communis L. Hoja Sen Caesalpinia pulcherrima (S.) Sw. Hombre Grande Guassia amara L. Huevos de Caballo Stemmadenia glabra Benth. Indio Desnudo Bursera simaruba (L.) Sarg Icaco Chrysobalanus icaco L. Itabo Yucca elephantipes Regel Jamaica Pimenta oficinales Lindl. Jicaro Crescentia cujete L. Jocote Spondias purpurea L. Lagartillo Zanthozyium spp. Limon Dulce Citrus limetta Rissa Table A4: (continued) Common Name Scientific Name Limon Acido Limon Cidra Limon mandarina Madero Negro Madrono Malinche Mamon Mamon Chino Mandarina Mangle Manzana Pera Maranon Mimbro Molidero Mora Muneco Murta/Mirto Nance Naranja Agria Naranja Dulce Nispero Nuez Moscada Papaturro Papaya Papaya del Monte Pico de Pajaro Pitanga/Cereza Pej ibaya Poro Quinacola Raspa Guacal Raton Saino Sapote Soncoya Sonzapote Tamarindo Targua Tibilote/J iguilote Tololo Toreta Toronja Tuna Yuplon Zapotillo Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) Swingle Citrus medica L. Citrus spp. Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Steud. Calycophyilum candidissimum (Vahl.) DC Caesalpinia pulcherria (L.) Sw. Meliocca bijuga L. Nephelium lappaceum L. Citrus reticulata Blanco Conocarpus erecta L. N/A Anacardium occidentale L. Averrhoa bilimbi L. Psidium reensanianum Chlorophora tinctoria (L.) Caudich. Cordia nitida Vahl. Calyptranthes costaricensis Berg Byrsonima crassifolia (L.) DC Citrus aurantium L. Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck Achras sapota L. Myristica fragrans Houtl. Coccoloba spp. Carica papaya L. Carica peltata Hook. & Arn. Cassia occidentalis L. Eugenia uniflora L. Guilielma utilis Oerst. Erythrina spp. N/A Crescenthia alata H.B.K. Rapanea ferruginea (R. & P.) Mez Caesalpinia eriostachys Benth. Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H.E. Moore & Steam Anonna purpurea M. & S. Licania platypus (Hemsl.) Fritsch TamarIndus indica L. Croton spp. Cordia alba (Jacq.) Roem. & Schult. N/A Annona boloseriacea Safford. Citrus grande (L.) Osbeck Nopalea cochinellifera (L.) Salm-Dyck Spondias cytherea Sonn. Pouteria spp. Table A5: Mixed garden plant species i n strata 4 (15.0 - 30.0 m) Common Name Scientific Name Aguacate Peraea americana Mill. A r d i l l a Pithecolobium arboreum (L.) Urban Cedro Amargo Cedrela mexicana Roem. Ceiba Ceiba pentandra Gaertn. Cipres Cupressus lusitanica Mill. Coco Cocos nucifera L. Corozo/Palma Real Scheelea costaricensis Burr Espavel Anacardium excel sum (Bert. & Balk.) Skeels Eucalipto Eucalyptus spp. Gallinazo (2) Schizolobium parahybum (Veil.) Blake Gavilan (3) Albizzia spp. Guacimo Molenillo Luehea Candida (DC) Mart. Guanacaste Enterolobium cyclocarpum (Jacq.) Gris Hiqueron Ficus spp. Jabillo Hura crepitans L. Jobo Spondias mombin L. Laurel Cordia alliodora (R. & P.) Cham. Mamey Mammea americana L. Mango Mangifera indica L. Manzana de Agua Eugenia malaccensis L. Manzana Rosa Eugenia jambos L. Olosapo Couepia polyandra (HBK) Rose Palma Africana Elaeis guineensis Jacq. Pino Pinus spp. Pochote Bombacopsis fendleri (Seem.) Pittier Poro Erythrina spp. Quebracho Lysiloma seemaii Brit. & Rose Roble Sabana Tabebula rosea (Vertol.) DC Taca Tectona grandis L. 291 A P P E N D I X 5 Table A6: Summary of some physical characteristics of 45 tree species as found in Costa Rican mixed gardens. Table A6. Summary of some physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 45 tree species as found i n Costa Rican Mixed Gardens. ( A l l measurements are in meters). HEIGHT CANOPY DIAMETER TRUNK HEIGHT CANOPY DEPTH NAME n X s. .d. X s. .d. X s. .d. X s. .d. Aceituno 3 6. , 27 1, .50 3 , .84 0, .24 1 .93 0, .47 3 .48 0, .31 Achiote 8 2. ,34 0 2 .68 0 0, .40 0 1 .94 0 Aguacate 14 10, .77 5. ,03 6. ,84 3 , .38 3 .34 1 , .74 7, . 43 3 , .68 CAESALPINACEA 1 5 , .88 0 5, .00 0 2 .85 0 3, .03 0 Can d e l i l l o 1 9. , 00 0 6. , 20 0 3 , .27 0 3 , .27 0 Canelo 4 5 , .66 1, ,46 5 , .79 2 , .99 1 , .95 0. ,47 3 .71 1, .91 Carao 4 10, .13 3, . 28 12, .04 6. ,63 3 , .57 1, . 39 6. , 55 2 , . 24 Cedro 1 12 , .50 0 6. ,02 0 6 .70 0 5. .80 0 Chicasqui1 1 5. , 48 0 4 , .20 0 2 . 08 0 3 , .40 0 Citrus sp. 1 1 , .79 0 0 , .55 0 — — — — Cortez Amarillo 1 5. , 62 0 3 , .15 0 3 , .00 0 2 .62 0 Esc o b i l l o 2 4, .91 2, .03 2 , .88 0. ,11 2 .50 0, .49 2, .41 1, .54 Gallinazo 2 5. ,65 2 , .48 3 , .87 2 , .03 1 , .45 0, .78 4, . 20 3. . 25 Guacimo 1 9. ,00 0 7, .80 0 1 .67 0 7. .33 0 Gavilan 1 17. , 00 0 13, .75 0 10, .50 0 6. , 50 0 Guachipilin 1 6. ,40 0 4, .50 0 3. .10 0 3, .30 0 Guacimo Molenillo 15 8. , 75 2 , .62 7. , 51 3 . 19 2 , .99 1. .31 5. ,75 1. ,74 G u a i t i l 1 8, .50 0 8. ,05 0 3. ,27 0 5. .23 0 Guanabana 5 7. , 50 1 . 82 2 . ,90 0. ,91 2 , .64 0. ,68 4. .86 1. ,34 Guanacaste 1 11 , .50 .0 7. .35 0 3. ,15 0 8. ,35 0 Guapinol 3 9. , 33 3 , .25 5. ,85 4. ,01 3 , . 23 0. ,64 6. , 10 2 . ,62 Guava 3 5, .86 3 , .68 6. , 23 5. ,42 1 , .96 1. ,05 3 , .91 3. ,11 Guayaba 2 5. , 45 2 , .57 4 , .51 2 . ,67 2 , . 25 0. ,67 3 , . 21 1 . 90 Jic a r o 7 7. .36 1 , 86 5 . 88 2 , .67 2 . 41 0. , 37 4, .95 1 , .77 Jocote 4 6. , 94 1 , 51 7. , 11 5. 40 2 , .43 0. ,30 4. .51 1 . ,55 Table A 6 . (continued) HEIGHT CANOPY DIAMETER TRUNK HEIGHT CANOPY DEPTH NAME n X s. .d. X s. .d. X s. .d. X s. ,d. Juche 1 4. .55 0 1 , .90 0 3 , .25 0 1, .30 0 Laurel 4 7 , .74 2 , .52 3 , .45 0, .54 2 .93 0 , .96 4, .80 2 , .58 Limon Acido 6 3 , .57 0 , .97 3 , .05 0. ,75 0, .61 0, ,40 2, .78 0. ,71 Limon Dulce 1 7, .80 0 8, .75 0 1. ,30 0 6, .50 0 Limon Mandarina 1 3. .70 0 1 , .85 0 1. .82 0 1. .88 0 Mamon 1 7 . 75 0 3. .30 0 2, .25 0 5 , .50 0 Mandarina 2 5. , 25 0, .86 4, .00 1. ,63 0, .85 0. ,64 4, .40 0. , 22 Mango 30 9. .45 3 , .78 7, .18 3. ,00 2 , .48 0, ,90 6 , .98 3. ,20 Maranon 3 6. ,60 1 , .79 3 , .07 1 , .01 2 , .53 1, , 38 4, .06 0 , .63 Molidero 8 9, .91 1 , .57 5, .08 1. ,27 3. .11 0 , .55 6 , .80 1 , .55 Muneco 1 10, .50 0 6. , 30 0 2 , .50 0 8. .00 0 Nance 2 6, .77 0. ,33 8, .13 0. ,11 2 .88 0. , 32 3 . 89 0. ,01 Naranja 29 7. , 41 1, .57 4, .25 1 . ,57 1 , .94 0. .74 5. ,47 1. , 22 Naranja Agria 1 4, .92 0 1 , .90 0 — — — — Papaya 2 5. ,45 2 , .90 2 . 74 0. ,34 1 . 48 0. ,81 3 , .98 2 . ,09 Roble Sabana 2 4. .94 2. ,31 3. ,49 2. ,14 2, .09 0. , 38 2, .85 2 , .69 Sapote 4 12. .80 4, .76 6. . 96 5. ,09 4 , .79 4 , .57 8. , 01 5. ,86 Sapote Rojo 1 4, .60 0 2 .65 0 1 , .90 0 2 , .70 0 Sap o t i l l o 2 9. , 20 6. , 08 7. , 36 6. , 98 3 , .07 1, . 32 6. , 13 4. ,77 Sardina 1 11. ,00 0 4. .36 0 4 .93 0 6, ,07 0 Tabaco 1 6. ,95 . 0 3 , .75 0 2 , .84 0 4, .11 0 294 A P P E N D I X 6 Table A7: Within-life-zone comparisons of the frequency of occurrence of the three most common mixed garden animals Table A7. W i t h i n - l i f e - z o n e comparisons of the frequency of occurrence of the three most common mixed garden animals. CHICKENS Location TDF TMF TWF TPWF,T TPWF 1 12 (1) 1 5 ( l ) a 6(0) l l ( 0 ) a 7 ( 0)b 2 8(2) 15 ( 0)a 8(1) 10 ( 0)a 12 ( 0)a 3 8(0) 7 ( l ) b 8(0) 5 ( 2)b 6 ( 0)b DOCKS 1 4(l)a 4 (0) 1 (0) 4 ( 0)a 0 ( 0)b 2 2 (0)b 1 (0) 3 (0) 4 ( 0)a 3 ( l ) a 3 0(0)c 2(0) 2 (0) 0 ( 0)b 0 (0)b PIGS 1 7(0) 10 ( 2)a 6(0) 2 (2) 0(0) 2 6(2) 7 ( 7)a 2 (2) 7(0) 1 (1) 3 3 (0) K D b 6(0) 3 (1) 0(0) Notes: Brackets f o l l o w i n g l i f e zones r e f e r t o the number farms with mixed gardens (out of 45) . The numbers i n b r a ckets f o l l o w i n g Table e n t r i e s represent the s number of cases i n which the p a r t i c u l a r animal was kept penned up. L e t t e r s r e f e r to s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s (a>b>c>d), acc o r d i n g to the K r u s k a l -W a l l i s One-way A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e . 296 A P P E N D I X Table A8: Correlation co-efficients relating species to the Principal Coordinates Axes. Table A9: Lis t of mixed garden species with a minimum occurrence of 15% in at least one l i f e zone. Table A8. Correlation coefficients relating species to the Principal Coordinates Axes. Only those species with a correlation of 0.200 or above are represented. Species Principal Coordinates Axes ID PC0A1 PCOA2 PCOA3 PCOA4 PCOA5 PCOA6 PCOA7 PCOA8 PCOA9 PCOA10 2 0.384 0.369 4 0.371 -0.312 -0.391 8 0.250 10 -0.356 11 -0.346 20 0.342 0.344 24 -0.410 -0.450 26 0.258 27 -0.366 28 0.363 30 0.348 34 0.317 39 0.349 41 0.240 48 0.354 49 -0.311 50 0.235 0.235 0.250 0.383 51. 0.367 0.326 54 0.447 0.425 57 0.316 64 0.216 0.214 72 0.311 78 0.312 86 -0.355 89 0.381 -0.442 93 -0.305 94 0.353 -0.334 0.348 103 0.335 104 -0.383 108 0.321 109 0.402 -0.403 -0.316 111 0.368 -0.306 114 0.241 117 0.490 119 0.439 120 -0.309 123 -0.399 129 0.329 130 0.374 -0.356 131 -0.309 132 0.506 133 -0.347 0.361 -0.301 137 0.404 139 0.325 -0.336 -0.308 -0.319 148 0.343 149 0.353 Table A8. Continued Species Principal Coordinates Axes ID PC0A1 PC0A2 PC0A3 PC0A4 PC0A5 PC0A6 PC0A7 PC0A8 PC0A9 PCOA10 150 0.240 0.275 0.256 0.232 151 0.370 152 0.246 - 0 . 2 4 5 0.265 153 0.317 0.444 158 0.330 162 0.500 0.330 164 0 .331 165 0.400 169 0.348 172 0.372 184 -0 .304 186 - 0 . 2 6 2 -0 .202 190 -0 .340 - 0 . 3 3 6 195 0.216 - 0 . 2 0 2 201 0.306 -0 .510 205 0.409 207 - 0 . 3 7 6 210 - 0 . 3 0 6 214 -0 .254 216 - 0 . 4 4 9 0.307 • • • 217 0.379 218 0.203 -0 .200 0.205 224 0.308 231 0.385 -0 .350 ' 299 Table A9. L i s t of mixed garden species with a minimum occurence of 15% i n at least one L i f e Zone. Local common name and s c i e n t i f i c name are given. Species Common # Name Lat i n Binomial 2 Achiote Bixa orellana L. 4 Aguacate Persea americana M i l l . 8 Almendro Terminalia catappa L. Man. 11 Anona Annona r e t i c u l a t a L. 20 Ayote Cucurbita pepo L. 24 Banano Musa (AAA group) 26 Cacao Theobroma cacao L. 27 Cafe Coffea arabica L. 28 Caimito Chrysophyllum c a i n i t o L. 30 Camote Ipomea batata L. 34 Cana de Azucar Saccharum officinarum L. 39 Carambola Averrhoa carambola L. 41 Cas Psidium f r i e d r i c h s t h a l i (Berg.) Niedenzu 48 Chayote Sechium edule (Jacq.) Sw. 49 Chicasqui1 Jatropha multifida L. 50 Chile Dulce Capsicum annum L. 51 Chile Picante Capsicum frutescens L. 54 Coco Cocos nucifera L. 64 Culantro Coyote Eryngium foetidum L. 72 F r a i l e c i l l o Jatropha g o s s y p i i f o l i a L. 78 Gandul Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth 86 Guacimo Guazuma u l m i f o l i a Lam. 89 Guanabana Annona muricata L. 93 Guava Inga sp. 94 Guayabo Psidium guajava L. 103 Indio Desnudo Bursera simaruba (L.) Sarg 104 Itabo Yucca elephantipes Regel 108 Jengibre Zingiber o f f i c i n a l e Roscoe 109 J icaro Crescentia cujete L. 111 Jocote Spondias purpurea L. 114 Laurel Cordia a l l i o d o r a (R. & P.) Cham. 117 Limon Acido Citrus a u r a n t i f o l i a (Christm.) 119 Limon Dulce Citrus iimetta Rissa 120 Limon Mandarina Citrus sp. 122 Madero Negro G l i r i c i d i a sepium (Jacq.) Steud. 125 Malanga Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott 129 Mamon Meliocca bijuga L. 130 Mamon Chino Nephilium lappaceum L. 131 Mandar ina Citrus r e t i c u l a t a Blanco 133 Mango Mangifera indica L. 137 Manzana de Agua Eugenia malaccensis L. 139 Maranon Anacardium occidentale L. 149 Name Dioscorea sp. 150 Nampi Xanthosoma sp. 151 Nance Byrsonima c r a s s i f o l i a (L.) DC 152 Naranja Agria Citrus aurantium L. Table A9. (continued) Species Common # Name Lat i n Binomial 153 Naranja Dulce Citrus sinensis (L.) 158 Oregano Origanum vulgare L. 162 Papaya Carica papaya L. 164 Paste/Estopa Luffa c y l i n d r i c a (L.) Roem. 165 Pejibaye Guilielma u t i l i s Oerst. 169 Pina Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. 172 Platano Musa (AAB & ABB group) 186 Ruda Ruta chalapensis L. 190 Sapote Pouteria sapota (Jacq.) H.E.Moore 191 Saragundi Cassia r e t i c u l a t a Willd. 195 Sonzapote Licania platypus (Hemsl.) F r i t s c h 201 Tamar indo Tamarindus indica L. 205 Tiqui sque Xanthosoma s a g i t t i f o l i u m Schott 207 Tomate Lycospersicum esculenta M i l l . 210 Tor/on ja Citrus grande (L.) Osbeck 214 Vainica Vigna sp. 216 Yuca Manihot esculenta L. 217 Yuplon Spondias cytherea Sonn. 218 Zacate limon Cympopogon c i t r a t u s (D.C.) Stapf. 231 Guinea Musa sp. 301 A P P E N D I X 8 Table A10: Summary of the geo-environmental variables used in Canonical Correlation Analysis of mixed garden species presence data. T a b l e A10. Summary o f t h e g e o - e n v i r o i i n e i i t a l v a r i a b l e s used i n Canon ica l C o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s i s o f mixed garden s p e c i e s presence d a t a . (-TO-ENVmiM-TOVL VARIABLES L i f e S lope Geomor- Temperature R e l a t i v e Hours o f R a i n f a l l Evaporat i< Zone L o c a t i o n (%) pho logy L a t i t u d e Long i tude m Humdi ty Sunshine (mn (i mn) (° ) (° ) (%) v . s . d . v . s . d . v . s . d . v . s . d . v . s . d . TDF Pitahaya 0-5 3 10 00 84 52 25.2 5.4 81.7 6.9 6.3 1.6 137.9 119.9 2.2 1.2 Cabo Blanca 0-5 3 9 56 85 01 25.2 5.4 81.7 6.9 6.3 1.6 137.9 119.9 2.2 1.2 Canas 15-35 2 10 25 85 06 27.3 1.1 76.6 9.8 7.0 1.8 160.0 143.6 5.5 3.7 IMF Hojancha 15-35 1 10 02 85 26 26.3 1.1 79.8 9.5 6.5 1.8 169.9 163.3 3.3 2.1 Pto. Viejo 0-5 3 9 38 82 39 25.4 0.9 85.0 2.1 5.0 1.1 285.5 214.3 1.9 0.4 San Mateo 15-35 3 9 55 84 53 25.0 1.8 80.3 10.7 173.6 153.9 4.7 2.8 TWF Herradura 5-15 3 9 36 84 40 25.2 5.4 81.7 6.9 6.3 1.6 137.9 119.9 2.2 1.2 Guapiles 5-15 3 10 13 83 48 23.9 1.1 88.0 2.0 4.3 0.9 356.2 206.8 1.5 1.9 Sarapiqui 5-15 3 10 26 84 01 25.3 0.9 85.6 4.0 4.5 1.2 331.2 190.6 1.4 0.4 TPWF,T Rio Frio 5-15 3 10 17 85 53 25.3 0.9 85.6 4.0 4.5 1.2 331.2 190.6 1.4 0.4 Pto. Cortez 0-5 3 8 51 83 34 25.9 1.3 87.2 2.8 6.1 1.8 297.5 167.2 1.7 0.5 Siquirres 0-5 3 . 10 06 83 32 24.7 1.4 80.8 5.5 4.3 1.3 281.6 232.9 1.3 0.2 TPWF Rivas 15-35 1 9 22 83 44 19.1 0.6 88.6 2.7 3.6 1.4 321.6 218.4 1.5 0.6 Puriscal 30-45 2 9 50 84 20 20.1 1.2 85.3 4.4 5.2 1.5 179.1 152.6 2.2 0.8 Grecia 30-45 2 10 04 84 20 22.3 0.7 77.8 7.9 6.7 1.9 131.7 117.3 3.9 2.2 Notes: Data for slope, geomorphology, latitude and longitude are taken from reource maps produced by OPSA (1978); meteo-rological data are taken from the 1980 Anuario Meteorologico, produced by the National Meteorological Institute of Costa Rica. In some cases, where meteorological stations Where not available for a given location the closest station was used. Co o to A P P E N D I X 9 Selected plans of Costa Rican mixed gardens BUENA VISTA 09-08-82 Prenorvtane W»?t Forest Total Area- 836,25 Infrastruc-turei 151,0 n Growing Space' 685,285 n r Grass { and \ \ \ \ V. \ \ s. L D S ANGELES ^ 03-09-82 TROPICAL MDIST FOREST T o t a l Area- 1053.5 r, 2 I n f r a s t r u c - t u r e i 91,1 m Growing Space' 96EI.4 n Bare Soil i i N House Sheol G r a s s \ 3Q&-30?" < \ \ JACD \ 23-09-62 \ TROPICAL WET FOREST t o - ta l Ar<aa.i - 3ZBJ2 I n f r a c i r u c t u r o ! £39.9 n E Growing Spacei 3047,3 n r~"-~ I / N ; L i i •/ [ i / House / / i / / ' i i i — i i i j HOTEL~ " — 5-D9-82 i 7 Total Area' 1075 m Z Infrastructure' 90 m p Growing Space' 984 n / ' •—j 310, . \ \ a i \ \ \ V i I 3 V " a ' P t 2. 2 'I y / i -i c a i . E 1 _ / I 3 S i_ e 5 _ •c x u z x -' 8 => A f£ -( U C U C U ^ -n <JJ Pi * K 5 8 I y S. 3 r 311, x u z = - 5 -< \ o e 2" o 1 •»* w 3: £ w S $ s LQ u_ MS J* -I •a L \2 * u 1 -3 f in <i n. Pasrixjre V \ \ \ RIO FRID 1 3 - 1 D - B B Troplirnl Vet rorest To-tol rtrerii 134K.7 n'l l n f r a s i r u c t u r e i SOft.D Gro-.vlriQ Spocei 1D4D.7 n'" i j .J s' i BARSACDAS 1£\09\8E \ TROPICAL WET \ PREMDNTANE FOREST I Total Area. 405.£5ne I n f r a s t r u c t u r e ' 63.0me Growing Space" 342.£5pf \ taunt \ \ \ I L MIRAVALLES DE PEREZ ZELEDON 10 \08 \82 TROPICAL VET PREMDNTANE FOREST T o t a l Area: 52.92m" CHIRRACA 1 3 \ 0 9 \ 8 2 TROPICAL VET PREMONTANE FDREST T o t a l A rea . 8Q.44r3 I n f r a s t r u c t u r e i 276.5Hi Growing Space- 196.7Sfi HIGLUTD DE SAN MATED 15\09\82 TROPICAL MDIST FOREST Tota l Area." 749.5 m" In f r e s t r u c t u r e . 123,l£na Grow-lno Space" 626.38n r SAN RAPHAEL j DE GUAPILES 2O\09\82 ! TROPICAL VET j FDREST L Growing Space' 407,B7me SAN JUAN ie\09\ee TROPICAL VET PREMDNTANE FOREST Total Are>a> 538,9rf Infrastructure! 63.0n* Growing Space" 342.25rf 1 PEUBLD NUEVD-SAN IS IDRO D 9 - 0 8 - 8 E Prenontane Vet Forest Total A r e a i K*>£ » Infrastructure' ~u. H Growing Space" 6 4 * * i House PEUBLD NEUVD-SAN ISIDRD 09-0B-82 Prenontane Vet Foresi; Growing Space' wx. n os-09 -ea Tropicfcl Bry forest _ Toted Areoi 447.13 n Infrastructure" 78.3B n Growing Sparei 368.35 n~ •• / /I rutera / / / / y 1 House i  i CO o 321 A P P E N D I X 10 Li s t of English names and Latin binomials for mixed garden species on the six farming system case studies ' 322 Appendix 10. List of english names and latin binomials for mixed garden species reported in the six farming systems case studies. Costa Rican Common Name English Common Name Latin Binomial* Aguacate Avocado Persea americana M i l l . Albahaca B a s i l Ocimum b a s i l i c u m L. A r a u c a r i a N/A A r a u c a r i a sp. Arracache Arracacha A r r a c a c i a x a n t h o r r h i z a Bancroft Ayote Squash C u c u r b i t a pepo L. Banano Banana Musa sapientum L. Bejuco de Mora N/A Rubus sp. Cafe Coffee C o f f e a a r a b i c a L. Caimito C a i n i t o Chrysophyllum c a i n i t o L. Camote Sweet Potato Ipomea b a t a t a L. Cana de Azucar Sugarcane Saccharum o f f i c i n a r u m L. Cas Cas Psidium f r i e d r i c h s t h a l i a n u m (Berg.) Niedenzu Chayote Chayote Sechium edule (Jacq.) Sw. C h i l e P i c a n t e C h i l e Pepper Capsicum f r u t e s c e n s L. Ci p r e s Cypress Cupressus l u s i t a n i c a C i r u e l a N/A U n i d e n t i f i e d Coco Coconut Cocos n u c i f e r a L. Cojombro N/A U n i d e n t i f i e d C u lantro Coyote C u l a n t r o Coyote Eryngium foetidum L. Durazno A p r i c o t Prunus p e r s i c a (L.) Sieb. & Zucc. F r a i l e c i l l o F r a i l e c i l l o Jatropha g o s s y p i i f o l i a L. Fr u t a de Pan B r e a d f r u i t Artocarpus cummunis F o r s t . G a n d u l / F r i j o l de Palo Pigeon Pea Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth Gavilana/Capitana N/A Neurolaena l o b a t a (L.) Guacimo Guazuma u l m i f o l i a Lam. Guanabana Soursop Annona muricata L. Guanacaate Guanacaste Enterolobium cyclocarpum Guayaba Guava Psidium guajava L. Guava N/A Inga sp. Hierba Buena Lemon Mint Mentha c i t r a t a Ehrh. Hiqueron N/A F i c u s sp. Huanilama N/A L i p p i a a l b a ( M i l l . ) N.E. Brown Itabo Yucca Yucca e l e p h a n t i p e s Regel J i c a r o Calabash C r e s c e n t i a c u j e t e L. Jocote Red Mombin Spondias purpurea L. Limon Acido Lime C i t r u s a u r a n t i f o l i a (Christm.) Swingle Limon Dulce N/A C i t r u s limonum Risso Limon mandarina N/A C i t r u s sp. Macadamia Macadamia Macadamia sp. Madero Negro N/A G l i r i c i d i a sepium (Jacq.) Steud. Maiz Corn Zea maiz Mamon Mamon Melicoccus b i j u g a t u s L. Mandarina Mandarin C i t r u s r e t i c u l a t a Blanco Mango Mango Mangifera i n d i c a L. Manzana de Agua Rose Apple Eugenia malaccensis L. Maranon Cashew Anacardium o c c i d e n t a l e L. Morera N/A Morus i n s i g n i s Bureau Appendix 10.. Continued Costa Rican English Common Name Common Name Latin Binomial name Yam Dioscorea sp. Naranja A g r i a Sour Orange C i t r u s aurantium L. Naranja Dulce Sweet Orange C i t r u s s i n e n s i s (L.) Osbeck N a r a n j i l l o N a r a n j i l l a Solanum q u i t i o e n s e Lam. Nispero N/A Achras zapota L. Nispero d e l Japon Loquat E r i o b o t r y a japonica L i n d l . Olosapo N/A Couepia polyandra (HBK) Rose Oregano Oregano Origanum vulgare L. Papaya Papaya C a r i c a papaya L. Pejibaye Pejibaye G u i l i e l m a u t i l i s Oerst. Pina Pineapple Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. Platano P l a n t a i n Musa p a r a d i s i a c a L. Poro N/A E r y t h r i n a sp. Sapote Sapote P o u t e r i a sapota (Jacq.) H.E.Moore & Stearn Saragundi N/A C a s s i a r e t i c u l a t a W i l l d . Sonzapote N/A L i c a n i a platypus (Hemsl.) F r i t s c h Tamarindo Tamarind Tamarindus i n d i c a L. Tiquisque Y a u t i a Xanthosoma s a g i t t i f o l i u m Schott Tomate Tomato Lycospersicum e s c u l e n t a M i l l . T oreta N/A Annona b o l o s e r i c e a S u f f o r d Toronja G r a p e f r u i t C i t r u s grande (L.) Osbeck Yuca Cassava Manihot e s c u l e n t a L. Zacate Limon Lemon Grass Cympopogon c i t r a t u s (D.C.) Stapf. * I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of species c o r r o b o r a t e d and/or c a r r i e d out by S t a f f of the Museo Na c i o n a l de Costa R i c a . A P P E N D I X 11 Temperature and humidity measurements Pitahaya de Puntarenas, Costa Rica Appendix 11. Temperature and humidity measurements from Pitahaya de Puntarenas, Costa Rica. R e l a t i v e S o i l 1 A i r L o c a t i o n Date Humidity Temperature Temperature (%) ( C) ( C) F i e l d 17/11/83 90 35, .2 32 19/11/83 79 33. .4 34 01/12/83 82 33. .5 32 10/12/83 72 30. ,7 30 Garden 17/11/83 71 29, .2 30 19/11/83 73. .7 29. .7 28 01/12/83 69. .7 29. .3 25 10/12/83 69. .7 27. .8 28 1 At 1 cm depth. A P P E N D I X 12 Results of a study of weed productivity in tropical mixed garden Appendix 12. Results of a study of weed productivity i n t r o p i c a l mixed gardens. F i r s t Harvest - September 6, 1983 Biomass Productivity Farm Component Sample Dry wt. (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. 226A l v s s i .06 39.11 s2 .00 .00 s3 .03 19.55 mean 19.55 19.55 stems s i .00 s2 .00 s3 .00 mean .00 f l & f r s i .00 s2 .00 s3 .00 Mean .00 226B l v s s i .27 175.98 s2 .00 .00 s3 .05 32.59 mean 69.52 93.62 stems s i .00 s2 .00 s3 .00 mean .00 f l & f r s i .00 s2 .00 s3 .00 Mean .00 F i r s t Harvest - September 6, 1983 (continued) Farm Biomass Component Sample Dry wt. Productivity (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. 303 l v s s i s2 s3 mean 3.52 .00 .04 2294.29 .00 26.07 773.45 1317.14 stems s i s2 s3 mean 1.86 .00 .00 1212.32 .00 .00 404.11 699.93 f l & f r s i s2 s3 Mean .00 .00 .00 .00 300 l v s s i s2 s3 mean .04 .17 .66 26.07 110.80 430.18 189.02 213.10 stems s i s2 s3 mean .08 .09 1.42 52.14 58.66 925.54 345.45 502.30 f l S f r s i s2 s3 Mean .00 .00 .00 .00 F i r s t Harvest - September 6, 1983 (continued) Biomass Farm Component Sample Dry wt. 302 l v s s i .81 s2 1.33 s3 .11 mean stems s i .42 s2 .28 s3 .00 mean f l & f r s i .00 s2 .00 s3 .00 Mean Productivity (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. 527.95 866.88 71.70 488.84 399.38 273.75 182.50 .00 152.08 139.38 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Farm Biomass Component Second Harvest Sample October 4, 1983 Dry wt. Product i v i t y (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. 226A l v s s i s2 s3 mean .00 .38 .27 .00 123.84 87.99 70.61 63.72 stems s i s2 s3 mean .00 .09 .08 .00 29.33 26.07 18.47 16.08 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 226B l v s s i s2 s3 mean .00 3.18 3.34 .00 1036.34 1088.48 708.27 613.93 stems s i s2 s3 mean .00 2.84 1.02 .00 925.54 332.41 419.32 468.84 f l £ f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Second Harvest - October 4 , 1983 (continued) Farm Biomass Component Sample Dry wt. P r o d u c t i v i t y (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. 303 l v s s i s2 s3 mean .00 10.32 .00 .00 3363.21 .00 1121.07 1941.75 stems s i s2 s3 mean .00 12.75 .00 .00 4155.13 .00 1385.04 2398.96 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 300 l v s s i s2 s3 mean .52 1.05 .74 169.46 342.19 241.16 250.94 86.77 stems s i s2 s3 mean .76 .40 1.34 247.68 130.36 436.70 271.58 154.56 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Second Harvest - October 4, 1983 (continued) Farm Biomass Component Sample Dry wt. Productivity (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. 302 l v s s i s2 s3 mean .44 .61 .16 143.39 198.79 52.14 131. 44 74.05 stems s i s2 s3 mean .28 .17 .04 91.25 55.40 13.04 53. 23 39.15 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 Third Harvest - November 1, 1983 Farm Biomass Component Sample Dry wt. Product i v i t y (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. 226A l v s s i s2 s3 mean .28 .16 .07 65.51 37.44 16.38 39.78 24.65 stems s i s2 s3 mean .16 .04 .03 37.44 9.36 7.02 17.94 16.92 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .11 .02 .01 25.74 4.68 2.34 10.92 12.88 226B l v s s i s2 s3 mean 13.01 .19 1.67 3044.01 44.46 390.74 1159.73 1640.98 stems s i s2 s3 mean 7.44 .00 .42 1740.77 .00 98.27 613.01 977.90 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean 1.78 .00 .07 416.47 .00 16.38 144.28 235.86 Fourth Harvest - November 29, 1983 Farm 226A Biomass Component Sample Dry wt. P roduct i v i t y (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. l v s s i s2 s3 mean .00 .75 .13 .00 131.61 22.81 51.47 51.47 stems s i s2 s3 mean .00 .07 .08 .00 12.28 14.04 8.77 8.77 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 226B l v s s i s2 s3 mean .01 26.74 19.52 1.75 4692.36 3425.38 2706.50 2706.50 stems s i s2 s3 mean .00 17.07 2.28 .00 2995.46 400.10 1131.85 1131.85 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 1.61 .08 .00 282.52 14.04 98.85 98.85 Fourth Harvest - November 29, 1983 Farm Biomass Component Sample Dry wt. P r o d u c t i v i t y (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s .d. 303 l v s s i s2 s3 mean 25.98 22.21 14.64 4558.99 3897.43 2569.04 3675.15 3675.15 stems s i s2 s3 mean 18.77 33.37 2.07 3293.77 5855.79 363.25 3170.94 3170.94 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .66 .67 .62 115.82 117.57 108.80 114.06 114.06 300 l v s s i s2 s3 mean 2.62 .01 7.40 459.76 1.75 1298.56 586.69 586.69 stems s i s2 s3 mean .71 .00 9.33 124.59 .00 1637.24 587.28 587.28 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 2.41 .00 .00 422.91 140.97 140.97 Fourth Harvest - November 29, 1983 Farm 302 Biomass Component Sample Dry wt. Productivity (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. l v s s i s2 s3 mean 8.63 1.67 .01 1514.40 293.05 1.75 603.07 603.07 stems s i s2 s3 mean 7.56 .73 .00 1326.63 128.10 .00 484.91 484.91 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 F i f t h Harvest - December 27, 1983 Farm 226A Biomass Component Sample Dry wt. Productivity (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. l v s s i s2 s3 mean .04 .00 .86 5.62 .00 120.73 42.12 68.14 stems s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .71 .00 .00 99.67 3 3 . 2 2 57.54 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 226B l v s s i s2 s3 mean 15.96 3.45 21.11 2240.54 484.33 2963.52 1896.13 1274.97 stems s i s2 s3 mean 23.00 8.53 25.93 3228.85 1197.48 3640.17 2688.83 1307.82 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean 2.54 1.14 4.37 356.58 160.04 613.48 376.70 227.39 F i f t h Harvest - December 27, 1983 Farm 303 Biomass Component Sample Dry wt. Productivity (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. l v s s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 stems s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 f l & f r s i s2 s3 mean .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 300 l v s s i s2 s3 mean 1.83 27.78 3.31 256.90 3899.88 464.67 540.49 2045.93 stems s i s2 s3 mean .70 10.03 1.23 98.27 1408.06 172.67 559.67 735.67 f l S f r s i s2 s3 mean .55 .46 .06 77.21 345.35 8.42 143.66 178.01 302 l v s s i s2 s3 mean 8.10 6.49 1.85 1137.12 911.10 259.71 769.31 455.56 Farm Biomass Component stems f l & fr F i f t h Harvest - December 27, 1983 Productivity Sample Dry wt. (gm/yr/100 m2) Mean s.d. s i 8.51 1194.67 s2 15.58 2187.19 s3 .38 53.35 mean 1145.07 1067.78 s i 1.62 227.42 s2 .55 77.21 s3 .00 .00 mean 101.54 115.64 Sixth Harvest - January 24, 1984 Sample Component 22 6A 22 6B 303 300 302 1 Leaves .00 6854.51 N/A 83.88 2013.16 2 .00 131.49 319.65 545.23 3 18.13 489.68 3744.08 758.33 4 5.67 168.89 121.28 1396.52 5 .00 627.98 277.71 3176.18 6 .00 759.47 132.62 869.42 7 .00 124.68 .00 171.16 8 .00 1971.22 .00 .00 9 .00 .00 31.73 .00 10 255.57 .00 .00 Mean 2.64(6.10) 1219.55 (2200.24) 496.65(1146.81) 893(1042 1 Stems .00 1397.65 N/A 35.14 2693.29 2 .00 70.28 518.02 476.08 3 29.47 332.12 2544.79 743.60 4 10.20 56.67 40.80 1194.75 5 .00 129.22 14.73 5015.91 6 .00 162.09 100.88 120.15 7 .00 23.80 247.11 66.87 8 .00 1905.48 36.27 .00 9 .00 .00 .00 .00 10 .00 .00 .00 .00 Mean 4.40(9.98) 453.03(698.13) 353.77(786.58) 1031.06 (1633.27) Sixth Harvest - January 24, 1984 (continued) Sample Component 226A 226B 303 300 302 1 Flowers & F r u i t s .00 422.81 N/A .00 757.20 2 .00 .00 .00 149.62 3 .00 .00 94.08 205.17 4 .00 .00 .00 168.89 5 .00 26.07 .00 1742.25 6 .00 35.14 .00 .00 7 .00 .00 .00 .00 8 .00 274.31 .00 .00 9 .00 .00 .00 .00 10 .00 .00 .00 .00 Mean .00 84.26(154.15) 9.40(29.75) 302.31(556.56) A P P E N D I X 13 Mean monthly l i t t e r f a l l for six mixed gardens distributed between two contrasting l i f e zones Appendix 13. Mean monthly l i t t e r f a l l (with standard deviations) for six mixed gardens distributed between two contrasting l i f e zones. LIFE C O L L E C T I O N P E R I 0 D1 ZONE FARM 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 221 24. (22. .90 .61) 18 (22 .04 .75) 11.47 (18.84) 15.19 (22.40) 16.15 (25.49) 19.88 (46.53) 10.67 (17.28) 10.50 (11.79) 35.34 (42.85) 80.32 (147.39) 7.56 (25.72) 23.35 (99.93) T 226 22. (23. .79 .21) 26 (45 .64 .30) 54.37 (130.68) 35.77 (83.78) 16.47 (16.26) 24.41 (31.30) 22.21 (51.66) 17.36 (16.66) 38.45 (29.21) 46.64 (28.71) 22.82 (39.12) 12.28 (75.24) D 303 5. (9. .48 .70) 16 (25 .86 • 14) 10.00 (15.76) 15.18 (27.56) 9.76 (15.19) 12.86 (20.42) 20.60 (37.46) 22.35 (37.07) 17.28 (16.33) 14 .89 (17.64) 122.01 (30.46) 10.20 (35.49) F ALL 17. (21. .93 .46) 20 (32 .51 .96) 25.28 (79.48) 22.15 (53.72) 14.13 (19.78) 19.05 (34.78) 17.82 (38.51) 17.30 (25.70) 30.35 (32.75) 47.45 (91.48) 12.49 (34.35) 17.29 (75.30) T 300 3, (7. .69 .42) 3 (8 .71 .54) 3.86 (6.21) 4.40 (4.79) 4.70 (6.63) 3.89 (4.17) 3.69 (6.13) 6.18 (10.66) 4.01 (7.01) 5.90 (8.35) 34.17 (11.44) 32.76 (40.23) P W F 301 11. (15, .54 .25) 7 (6 .09 .33) 11.39 (13.78) 10.72 (13.64) 7.42 (6.72) 18.31 (33.79) 4.96 (6.21) 11.16 (13.80) 10.422 (9.06) 12.95 (15.96) 53.57 (42.18) 43.44 (10.08) 302 9, (8. .44 .98) 6 (6 .58 .50) 9.11 (14.66) 8.19 (14.74) 7.31 (10.79) 7.49 (11.18) 6.34 (9.98) 6.17 (6.42) 18.27 (28.65) 11.94 (7.64) 25.19 (7.85) 21.47 (4.39) T ALL 7. (10, .09 .86) 5 (7 .27 .71) 7.05 (11.46) 6.93 (10.96) 6.03 (8.01) 8.40 (18.98) 4.65 (7.30) 7.42 (10.93) 9.18 (16.88) 9.16 (11.18) 37.64 (23.76) 32.33 (29.61) l i t t e r f a l l form farms 221, 226, and 303 was c o l l e c t e d between 24/05/83 - 10/04/84; l i t t e r f a l l f o r farms 300, 301 , and 302 was c o l l e c t e d between 10/06/83 - 04/05/84. to CO 344 A P P E N D I X 14 Summary of s o i l analyses for different agroecosystems on the six case study farms Appendix 14. Summary of soil analyses for different agroecosystems on the six case study farms. LIFE ZONE FARM AGROECOSYSTEM DEPTH PH ORGANIC MATTER Ca Mg 226 Mixed Garden P i p i a n / R i c e / Maize 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 0.5 cm 5-20 cm 6.2 6.3 6.1 5.7 2.35 2.35 2.08 1.61 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.09 1.0 6.5 15.5 11.0 0.63 0.43 0.72 0.38 16.9 18.6 19.5 18.6 3.67 4.05 4.07 3.75 P l a n t a i n 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 6.0 5.7 2.28 1.54 0.12 0.09 16.5 15.5 0.55 0.33 15.5 17.7 3.31 3.56 221 Mixed Garden 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 6.8 7.1 28 88 0.18 0.17 8.0 5.9 .04 .89 17. 19. 3.44 4.00 303 Mixed Garden 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 68 88 0.16 0.11 48.0 80.0 02 95 14.0 12.8 4.57 3.90 Pasture 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 22 81 0.21 0.11 24.0 9.0 0.72 0.57 14. 13. 5.31 4.92 T P W F 300 Mixed Garden Pasture 301 Mixed Garden 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 5.1 4.8 5.0 5.1 5.9 5.4 6.16 5.9 10.05 7.77 9.85 9.38 0.30 0.30 0.65 0.36 0.5 0.46 9.5 7.5 6.0 4.5 12.5 8.0 0.47 0.32 0.15 0.07 0.51 0.35 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.62 0.40 0.79 0.59 1.25 0.41 302 Mixed Garden 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 7.0 6.6 5.9 5.9 0.31 0.31 38.5 14.0 88 02 2.38 2.59 Pasture 0-5 cm 5-20 cm 5.2 5.2 8.17 6.57 0.45 0.33 7.0 5.0 0.20 0.14 0.22 0.18 A P P E N D I X 15 Root biomass for six mixed gardens distributed between two contrasting l i f e zones Appendix 15. Root biomass for six mixed gardens distributed between two contrasting l i f e zones1. Values are mean dry mass (grams per meter square) + one standard deviation. Diameter Class Depth Farm (cm) < : L mm 1--2 mm 2--5 nun 5-: 10 nun 10-20 mm > 20 mm 221 0 -5 31 .29 + 26.25 131 .17 + 87.88 114 .32 + 125.09 0. 00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 5 -25 115 .52 + 58.36 315 .28 + 129.34 435 .62 + 197.01 1336. 94 + 1149.77 0 .00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 226 0 -5 39 .71 + 46.93 36 .10 + 37.05 58 .97 + 131.85 0. 00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 5 -25 150 .42 + 84.14 164 .86 + 163.18 152 .83 + 188.16 0. 00 + 0.00 51 .74 + 115.71 0 .00 + 0.00 303 0 -5 29 .91 + 22.31 890 .15 + 2053.96 7 .22 + 12.80 0. 00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 5 -25 179 .47 + 155.26 146 .47 + 113.88 137 .18 + 151.70 116. 55 + 285.50 55 .70 + 136.43 0 .00 + 0.00 300 0 -5 778 .58 + 1590.40 123 .95 + 63.28 111 .91 + 143.60 0. 00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 5 -25 51 .74 + 44.39 81 .83 + 69.09 277 .98 + 136.91 171. 84 + 247.45 222 .62" + 497.80 886 .88 + 1983. 13 301 0 -5 96 .27 + 48.91 111 .91 + 116.18 9 .63 + 21.53 0. 00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 5' -25 114 .32 + 50.96 198 .56 + 142.63 142 .00 + 144.98 36. 10 + 80.72 0 .00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 302 0 -5 40 .91 + 30.82 155 .23 + 205.52 0 .00 + 0.00 0. 00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 0 .00 + 0.00 5--25 1393 .50 + 2611.72 255 .11 + 264.92 155 .23 + 255.56 370. 64 + 479.94 199 .76 + 446.68 1534 .30 + 3430. 79 'Farms 221, 226 and 303 belong t o the TDF zone, while 300, 301 and 302 are i n the TPWF,T zone. A P P E N D I X 16 Summary of the cultural energy balance for the different agroecosystems on the different farms Appendix 16a. Summary of the c u l t u r a l energy balance f o r the d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 221, Pitahaya. (1) mixed garden output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s m aterial qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s p i g 1. .00 35.00. 457. 00 15995. .00 feed(corn) 170. .20 1.00 361. 00 61442. .20 soursop 1. .00 2.00 101. 00 202. .00 chicks 18. .00 .28 302. 00 1522. .08 cashew 232. .00 .03 628. 00 4370. .88 hens 13 , .00 1.14 302. 00 4475. . 64 coconut 167. .00 2.00 359. 00 119906. .00 p i g feed 137. .40 1.00 361. 00 49601. .40 mango 396. .00 .40 72. 00 11404. .80 p i g l e t s 1. .00 8.75 457. 00 ' 3998. .75 eggs 800. .00 . 10 398. 00 31840. .00 p l a n t a i n 1. .00 18.00 99. 00 1782, .00 labour chicken 7. .00 1.14 302. 00 2409. . 96 chicks 20. .00 .29 302. 00 1751. . 60 Jorge 110, .50 1.00 312. 00 34476. .00 honey 15. .00 . 91 294 . 00 4013. . 10 Mother 150, .50 1.00 210. 00 31605. .00 Brother 4 , .00 1.00 312. 00 1248. .00 T o t a l Energy Output: 193675. .34 Total Energy Input: 188369. .07 Output/Input: 1. .03 (2) f r u i t orchard output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s m aterial qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 80. .00 18.00 99. 00 142560. .00 seedlings 45, .00 1.00 45. 00 2025. .00 coconut 475. .00 2.00 359. 00 341050. .00 f e r t i l i z e r 2, .09 1.00 42857. 14 89571. .42 firewood 6. .00 600.00 3261. 90 11742840. .00 oranges 75. .00 .30 45. 00 1012. .50 p l a n t a i n 140. .00 18.00 99. 00 249480. .00 labour lemon 70. ,00 .10 44. 00 308. .00 mango 1434 . ,00 .40 72. 00 41299. .20 Jorge 141, .00 1.00 312. 00 43992. .00 nephews 4 , .00 1.00 210. 00 840. .00 T o t a l Energy Output: 12518549. .70 Total Energy Input: 136428. .42 Output/Input: 91.76 U) J> VO Appendix 16a. Continued ... (3) maize output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s mango 246.00 .40 72.00 7084.80 maize 126.00 .45 361.00 20468.70 tamarind .90 1.00 239.00 215.10 labour Jorge 36.50 1.00 312.00 11388.00 Total Energy Output: 27768.60 Total Energy Input: 11388.00 Output/Input: 2.44 Appendix 16b. Summary o f the c u l t u r a l energy balance f o r the d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 226, Pitahaya. (1) mixed garden output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 3. .00 18.00 99. 00 5346, .00 feed(corn) 269, .20 1. .00 361. 00 97181. .20 cashew 235. .00 .03 626. 00 4413, .30 chicks 11, .00 .29 302. 00 963. .38 coconut 15. .00 2.00 359. 00 10770. .0.0 hens 6, .00 1. . 14 302. 00 2065. . 68 mango 249. .00 .40 72. 00 7171. .20 sorghum 21, .00 1. .00 360. 00 7560. .00 guayabo 35 , .00 . 10 49. 00 171, .50 r i c e 21, .00 1. .00 360. 00 7560. .00 nispero 266. .00 .02 41. 00 218, .12 eggs 1108. .00 . 10 398. 00 44098. .40 labour lemons 84 , .00 . 10 44 . 00 369, .60 0 plantain 7 . 00 18.00 99. 00 12474, .00 Miquel 27, .50 1. .00 312. 00 8580. .00 chicken 2 , .00 1.14 302. 00 688. .56 Wife 187, .50 1. .00 210. 00 39375. .00 manzana d agua 250, .00 .01 56. 00 140, .00 others 57, .00 1. .00 312. 00 17784. .00 Total Energy Output: 85860, .68 energy transportation 6, .00 1. .00 9569662. 39 57417974. .34 T o t a l Energy Input: 57599043.60 Output/Input: .0014906616 (2) plantain output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s plantain 555.00 18.00 99.00 989010.00 f e r t i l i z e r 69.70 1.00 42857 . 14 2987142.66 plantain stems 555.00 100.00 43.00 2386500.00 herbicide .10 1.00 643000 .00 64300.00 gasoline 338.80 1.00 9569662 .39 3242201617.73 lime 160.00 1.00 15 .50 2480.00 Total Energy Output: 3375510.00 nematicide .20 1.00 86910 .10 17382.02 r a t i c i d e 15.00 .01 86910 .10 13036.52 Appendix 16b. Continued labour Miquel 57. .00 1. .00 312. ,00 17784. .00 brother 588. .00 1. .00 312. ,00 183456. .00 Peon 55. .00 1. .00 312. ,00 17160. .00 Others 64 . 00 1. .00 210. ,00 19968. .00 Total Energy Input: 3245524326.93 Output/Input: .0010400507 (3) rice/maize/pipian/beans output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e ; p l antain 275, .00 .36 99.00 9801, .00 f e r t i l i z e r 100. .00 1 .00 42857, .14 4285714.00 maize 181, .80 1.00 361.00 65629, .80 herbicide 4. .90 1 .00 64300, .00 315070.00 r i c e 1452, .30 1.00 360.00 522828, .00 fungicide .50 1 .00 86910, .10 43455.05 sweet corn 200, .00 .45 361.00 32490, .00 pipian seed 96. .00 .00 360, .00 86.40 pipian 2306, .00 .91 29.00 60855, .34 bean seed 6. .00 1 .00 360, .00 2160.00 watermelon 80. .00 1.00 28.00 224 0. .00 gasoline 177. .40 1, .00 9569662, .39 1697658107.99 ayote 6. .00 .91 29.00 158. .34 i n s e c t i c i d e 4. .90 1, .00 86910, .10 425859.49 motor o i l 1. .10 1, .00 11429000. .00 12571900.00 n i t r a t e 315. .00 1, .00 14700000. .00 4630500000.00 Total Energy Output: 694002. .48 r i c e seed 47. .00 1, .00 360. .00 16920.00 r a t i c i d e .10 1, .00 86910. .10 8691.01 labour Miquel 54 . ,00 1. .00 312. .00 16848.00 brother 921. ,50 1. .00 312. .00 287508.00 peon 250. ,00 1. .00 312. .00 78000.00 other 10. ,00 1. .00 210. .00 2100.00 energy harvester 376.70 1.00 9569662.39 3604891822.31 Appendix 16b. Continued ... T o t a l Energy Input: 9951104242.25' Output/Input: .0000697412531 (4) papaya/soursop output material qty standard weight c a l o r i e s / gm k i l o c a l o r i e s input material qty standard weight c a l o r i e s / gm k i l o c a l o r i e s papaya soursop 94 .00 6.30 1.00 2.00 46.00 101.00 4324.00 1272.60 seedling 50.00 1.00 45.00 2250.00 Total Energy Output: 5596.60 labour Miquel brother 11.00 23.00 1.00 1.00 312.00 312.00 3432.00 7176.00 T o t a l Energy Input: 12858.00 Output/Input: .44 Appendix 16c. Summary of the c u l t u r a l energy balance of the d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 303, Pitahaya. (1) mixed garden output standard. c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s m aterial qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s p i g 2. .00 35.00 457.00 31990. .00 pi g feed 100. .00 1 .00 361 .00 36100. 00 soursop 2. .00 2.00 101.00 404. .00 limes 102. .00 .10 44 .00 448. 80 mango 112. .00 .40 72.00 3225. . 60 p i g l e t s 3. .00 8 .75 457 .00 11996. 25 eggs 1561. .00 . 10 398.00 62127. .80 sorghum 497. .41 1 .00 360 .00 179067. 27 grapefruit 99. .00 .60 45.00 2673. .00 r i c e 10. .45 1 .00 360 .00 3763. 64 lemons 1428. .00 . 10 44 .00 6283. .20 milk 76. .00 1 .00 61 .00 4636. 00 oranges 196, .00 .30 . 45.00 2646. .00 chicks 10, .00 .29 302.00 875. .80 labour Pedro 61. .75 1 .00 312 .00 19266. 00 Total Energy Output: 110225. .40 Wife 327. .00 1 .00 210 .00 68670. 00 Sons 1. .50 1 .00 312 .00 468. 00 Total Energy Input 324415. 96 Output/Input • 34 (2) pasture output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s m a t e r i a l qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s cows 6, .00 600.00 " 118.00 424800. .00 f e r t i l i z e r 4. .60 1 .00 42857. ,14 197142.84 b u l l s 1, .00 600.00 118.00 70800. .00 animal feed 54. .55 1 .00 361. ,00 19690.91 oranges 120, .00 .30 45.00 1620. .00 milk 2724 , .56 1.00 61.00 166197. .86 labour c a l f 6, .00 150.00 118.00 106200. .00 Pedro 486. .00 1 .00 312. ,00 151632.00 Sons 16. .00 1 .00 312. ,00 49 92.00 Total Energy Output: 769617. .86 Wife 14. .00 1 .00 210. ,00 2940.00 Peon 28. .00 1 .00 312. ,00 8736.00 Others 40. .00 1 .00 312. ,00 12480.00 Appendix 16c. Continued To t a l Energy Input: 397613.75 Output/Input: 1.94 (3) F r u i t Orchard output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 1.00 18.00 99.00 1782.00 labour p l a n t a i n 1.00 18.00 99.00 1782.00 mango 568.00 .40 72.00 16358.40 Pedro 103. .00 1.00 312. 00 32136.00 coconut 638.00 2.00 359.00 458084.00 sons 12, .00 1.00 312. 00 3744.00 oranges 241.00 .30 45.00 3253.50 Tot a l Energy Input: 35880.00 Total Energy Output: 481259.90 Output/Input: 13.41 (4) Rice 1 output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s mango 70.00 .40 72.00 2016.00 f e r t i l i z e r 385. .20 1.00 42857. 14 16508570.33 r i c e 164 60.90 1.00 360.00 5925924.00 herbicide 32. .18 1.00 64300. 00 2069174.00 p e s t i c i d e 2. .00 1.00 86910. 10 173820.20 seed 194. .36 1.00 360. 00 69969.60 Total Energy Output: 5927940.00 labour Pedro 491. .00 1.00 312. 00 153192.00 sons 84. .00 1.00 312. 00 26208.00 peons 504 . 25 1.00 312. 00 157326.00 Appendix 16c. Continued ... energy transportation 18.80 1.00 11429500.00 214874600.00 harvester 753.40 1.00 11429500.00 8610985300.00 Total Energy Input: 8845018160.13 Output/Input: .0006702009 (5) Rice 2 output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty we ight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s r i c e 7469.70 1.00 360.00 2689092.00 f e r t i l i z e r 272. . 10 1 .00 42857. .14 11661427.79 herbicide 32. .97 1 .00 64300. .00 2119971.00 p e s t i c i d e 1. .00 1 .00 86910. .10 86910.10 Total Energy Output: 2689092.00 seed 236. .40 1 .00 360 , .00 85104.00 labour Pedro 193. .00 1 .00 312. .00 60216.00 sons 3. ,00 1 .00 312 . 00 936.00 peons 578. .00 1 .00 312 . 00 180336.00 energy trans p o r t a t i o n 18. ,80 1 .00 11429500. .00 214874600.00 harvester 313. ,90 1 .00 11429500. .00 3587720050.00 Total Energy Input: 3816789550.89 Output/Input: .0007045429055 Appendix 16d. Summary of the c u l t u r a l energy balance f o r the d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 300, San Juan Sur. (1) mixed garden output material qty standard weight c a l o r i e s / gm k i l o c a l o r i e s input material qty standard weight c a l o r i e s / gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 11. .00 18 .00 99. .00 19602, .00 f e r t i l i z e r 6, .00 1.00 42857, .14 257142. .84 breadfruit 35. .00 .91 I l l . .00 3535, .35 herbicide 1, .50 1.00 64300, .00 96450. .00 caibas 40. .00 .10 29. .00 116, .00 seedling 30, .00 1.00 45, .00 1350. .00 chayote 97. .00 .46 26. .00 1160, .12 coffee 102. .00 17 .40 352. .00 624729, .60 eggs 102. .00 .10 398. .00 4059, .60 labour firewood 5. .00 600 .00 3261. .90 9785700, .00 lemons 395. .00 .10 44 . 00 1738, .00 Alvaro 231, .50 1.00 312, .00 72228. .00 oranges 690. .00 .30 45. .00 9315. .00 Sons 83 , .00 1.00 312, .00 25896. .00 pejebaye 1. .00 23 .00 189. .00 4347, .00 Wife 192 , .00 1.00 210, .00 40320. .00 plantain 2. .00 18 .00 99. .00 3564 , .00 squash 19. .00 .91 29. .00 501, .41 pineapple 12. .00 .91 52 . 00 567, .84 T o t a l Energy Input: 493386. .84 chicken 6, .00 1 .14 302 . 00 2065, .68 Output/Input: 21.20 Total Energy Output: 10461001.60 (2) coffee w output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 2.00 18.00 9.00 324.00 f e r t i l i z e r 2.00 1.00 42857.14 85714.28 coffee 262.00 17.40 352.00 1604697.60 cucumber 20.00 .25 12.00 60.00 firewood 1.00 600.00 3261.90 1957140.00 labour oranges 500.00 .30 45.00 6750.00 Alvaro 208.00 1.00 312.00 64896.00 Total Energy Output: 3568971.60 son 53.00 1.00 312.00 16536.00 wife 16.00 1.00 210.00 3360.00 A p p e n d i x 1 6 d . C o n t i n u e d . . . T o t a l Energy Input: 170506.28 Output/Input: 20.93 (3) coffee w output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 70.00 18.00 99.00 124740.00 f e r t i l i z e r 8. .00 1.00 42857. ,14 342857, .12 coffee 1318.00 17.40 352.00 8072486.40 herbicide 1. .00 1.00 643000. ,00 643000, .00 sugarcane 45.00 .40 364.00 6552.00 Total Energy Output: 8203778.40 labour Alvaro 832. .00 1.00 312 . ,00 259584, .00 son 260. .00 1.00 312. ,00 81120, .00 wife 320. .00 1.00 210. ,00 67200, .00 energy transportation 6. .00 1.00 606. ,00 3636, .00 Total Energy Input: 1397397. .12 Output/Input: 5, .87 (4) coffee w output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 28.00 18 .00 99.00 49896.00 f e r t i l i z e r 2. .00 1.00 42857. 14 85714. .28 coffee 309.50 17 .40 352.00 1895625.60 herbicide 2. .00 1.00 643000. 00 1286000. .00 firewood 5.00 600.00 3261.90 9785700.00 grapefruit 10.00 .60 45.00 270.00 labour lemons 175.00 .10 44 .00 770.00 oranges 2500.00 .30 45.00 33750.00 Alvaro 454. .00 1.00 312. 00 141648. .00 A p p e n d i x 1 6 d . C o n t i n u e d son 89.00 1.00 312.00 27768.00 Total Energy Output: 11766011.60 wife 136.00 1.00 210.00 28560.00 energy transportation 4.50 1.00 606.00 2727 .00 T o t a l Energy Input: 1572417.28 Output/Input: 7.48 (5) root garden output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s arracache 15.00 1.00 98.00 1470.00 sugarcane 10.00 .40 364.00 1456.00 beans 4.00 1.00 35.00 140.00 cassava 10.00 1.00 362.00 3620.00 labour coffee 5.00 17.40 352.00 30624.00 tiquisque 8.00 1.00 98.00 784.00 Alvaro 101.00 1.00 312.00 31512.00 son 24.00 1.00 312.00 7488.00 Total Energy Output: 36638.00 T o t a l Energy Input: 40456.00 Output/Input: .91 Appendix 16e. Summary of the c u l t u r a l energy balance f o r the d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 301, San Juan Sur. (1) mixed garden output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 2. .00 18.00 99.00 3564. .00 herbicide 2. 00 1.00 643000.00 1286000. 00 cassava 7. .00 1.00 362.00 2534. .00 seedling 3. 00 1.00 45.00 135. 00 chayote 403. .00 .46 26.00 4819. .88 feed(corn) 8. 00 1.00 361.00 2888. 00 eggs 146. .00 . 10 398.00 5810. .80 feed(rice) 4. 00 1.00 360.00 1440. 00 grapefruit 231. .00 .60 45.00 6237. .00 chicks 17. 00 .29 302.00 " 1488. 86 lemons 130. .00 . 10 44.00 572. .00 oranges 163 . 00 .30 45.00 2200. .50 labour plantain 1. .00 18.00 99.00 1782. .00 squash 56. .00 . 91 29.00 1477. .84 Boliv a r 31. 50 1.00 312.00 9828 . 00 chicks 29, .00 .29 302.00 2539. .82 Wife 38. 30 1.00 210.00 8043. 00 tiquisque 2, .00 1.00 98.00 196. .00 T o t a l Energy Input: 1309822. 86 Total Energy Output: 31733. .84 Output/Input: • 02 (2) coffee w output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 3, .00 18.00 99.00 5346.00 seedlings 4 .00 1.00 45.00 180 .00 coffee 1, .80 17.40 352.00 11024.64 plantain 3, .00 18.00 99.00 5346.00 labour Total Energy Output: 21716.64 Boliv a r 20 .00 1.00 312.00 6240 .00 T o t a l Energy Input: 6420.00 Output/Input: 3.38 Appendix 16e. Continued (3) coffee w output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana 6.00 18.00 99.00 10692.00 f e r t i l i z e r 1.00 1.00 42857.14 42857.14 cassava 57.00 1.00 362.00 20634.00 herbicide .50 1.00 643000.00 321500.00 coffee 27.00 17.40 352.00 165369.60 seedlings 45.00 1.00 45.00 2025.00 firewood 2.00 600.00 3261.90 3914280.00 plantain 2.00 18.00 99.00 3564.00 Total Energy Output: 4114539.60 labour B o l i v a r Peon wife 106.00 48.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 312.00 312.00 210.00 33072.00 14976.00 1260.00 Total Energy Input: Output/Input: 415690.14 9.90 (4) coffee w output material qty standard c a l o r i e s / weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s input material qty standard c a l o r i e s / weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s coffee firewood plantain sugarcane 136.80 17.40 2.50 600.00 3.00 18.00 56000.00 1.00 352.00 837872.64 3261.90 4892850.00 99.00 5346.00 364.00 20384000.00 Total Energy Output: 26120068.64 f e r t i l i z e r herbicide seedlings labour B o l i v a r Peon Wife 3.00 1.70 30.00 347.00 107.00 66.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 42857.14 643000.00 45.00 312.00 312.00 210.00 128571.42 1093100.00 1350.00 108264.00 33384.00 13965.00 T o t a l Energy Input: 1378634.42 Output/Input: 18.95 Appendix 16e. Continued ... (5) root garden output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana coffee lemons oranges 3.00 18.00 99.00 5346.00 2.00 17.40 . 352.00 12249.60 17.00 .10 44.00 74.80 28.00 .30 45.00 378.00 Total Energy Output: 18048.40 herbicide seedlings 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 643000.00 45.00 643000.00 225.00 labour B o l i v a r Wife 23.20 8.00 00 00 312.00 210.00 7238.40 1680.00 Total Energy Input: 652143.40 Output/Input: .03 Appendix 16f. Summary of the c u l t u r a l energy balance f o r the d i f f e r e n t agroecosystems on Farm 302, San Juan Sur. (1) mixed garden output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i ' banana 2. .00 18.00 99. 00 3564. .00 feed(corn) 6, .00 1. .00 360. ,00 2160.00 cassava 7. .00 1.00 362. 00 2534. .00 feed(banana) 341, .00 18. .00 99. ,00 607662.00 chayote 972. .00 .46 26. 00 11625. .12 chicks 11, .00 .29 302. ,00 963.38 eggs 768. .00 . 10 398. 00 30566. .40 hens 2, .00 1. . 14 302. ,00 688.56 grapefruit, 2. .00 .60 45. 00 54 . 00 chicken feed 21, .00 1. .00 361. ,00 7581.00 oranges 1533, .00 .30 45. 00 20695. .50 lime 2, .00 1. .00 15. ,50 31.00 chicks 32, .00 .29 302. 00 2802. .56 p i g l e t s 9, .00 8. .75 457. ,00 35988.75 cas 15, .00 .01 49. 00 7. .35 rabbits 4 , .00 1. . 14 302. ,00 1377.12 camote 1, .00 1.00 123. 00 123. .00 yuca 10, .00 1. .00 362. ,00 3620.00 arracache 1. .00 1.00 98. 00 98. .00 honey 96, .00 . 91 294 . 00 25683. .84 labour manzana d agua 163, .00 .01 56. 00 91. .28 malanga 4 , .00 1.00 98. 00 392. .00 Francisco 80 .00 1. .00 312. ,00 24960.00 rabbit 1 .00 1.14 302. 00 344. .28 daughters 1 .75 1. .00 210. ,00 367.50 t e p i s q u i n t l e 1 .00 13.50 457. 00 6169. .50 Wife 81 .50 1. .00 210. ,00 17115.00 f r i e n d 4 , .00 1. .00 312. ,00 1248.00 Total Energy Output: 104750.83 Total Energy Input: 703762.31 Output/Input: .15 (2) coffee output material qty standard c a l o r i e s / weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s input material qty standard c a l o r i e s / weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana coffee firewood oranges itabo 421.00 18.00 525.50 17.40 4.00 600.00 150.00 .30 1.00 .50 99.00 750222.00 352.00 3218582.40 3261.90 7828560.00 45.00 2025.00 29.00 14.50 f e r t i l i z e r seedlings labour 500.00 1.00 42857.14 21428570.00 200.00 1.00 45.00 9000.00 Appendix 16f. Continued lemon 50.00 .10 44.00 220.00 Francisco 1392.00 1.00 312.00 434304.00 Peon 284.00 1.00 312.00 88608.00 Total Energy Output: 11799623.90 Daughters 739.00. 1.00 210.00 155190.00 Total Energy Input: 22115672.00 Output/Input: .53 (3) Horse Pasture - I n s u f f i c i e n t data for a n a l y s i s . (4) Plantain & Yuca output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s p lantain 16.00 18.00 99.00 28512.00 f e r t i l i z e r 1 .00 1.00 42857. 14 42857 .14 beans 9.00 1.00 360.00 3240.00 ayote 30 .00 .01 29. 00 8 .70 va i n i c a 19.00 1.00 35.00 665.00 cabbage 1200 .00 .01 24. 00 288 .00 yuca 20 .00 1.00 362.00 7240.00 cucumber 12 .00 .01 12. 00 1 .44 tomato 125 .00 .01 50. 00 62 .50 Total Energy Output: 39657.00 bean seed 4 .00 1.00 360. 00 1440 .00 green bean s 2 .00 1.00 360. 00 720 .00 misc. seed 113 .40 .10 360. 00 4082 .40 labour Francisco 58 .25 1.00 312. 00 18174 .00 Peon '40 .00 1.00 312. 00 12480 .00 daughters 198 .00 1.00 210. 00 41580 .00 Tot a l Energy Input: 121694 .18 Output/Input: .33 Appendix 16f. Continued (5) Cow Pasture output material standard c a l o r i e s / input qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty standard c a l o r i e s / weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s banana hay firewood 3.00 18.00 200.00 1.00 576.00 1.00 99.00 5346.00 100.00 20000.00 3261.90 1878854.40 Total Energy Output: 1904200.40 herbicide seedlings labour Francisco peon daughters 1.00 11.00 120.00 36.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 643000.00 45.00 312.00 312.00 210.00 To t a l Energy Input: Output/Input: 643000.00 495.00 37440.00 11232.00 3360.00 695527.00 2.74 (6) Brush Fallow - I n s u f f i c i e n t data for a n a l y s i s . (7) Root & Vegetable Garden output standard c a l o r i e s / input standard c a l o r i e s / material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s material qty weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s arracache 5, .00 1. .00 98. 00 490. .00 cabbage 27, .00 .01 24. 00 6. .48 banana 2, .00 18. .00 99. 00 3564. .00 bean seed 8, .50 1.00 360. 00 3060. .00 beans 29, .00 1. .00 360. 00 10440. .00 soursop 1, .00 1.00 35. 00 35. .00 cassava 67, .00 1. .00 362. 00 24254. .00 coffee 36, .00 17. .40 359. 00 224877. .60 labour tiquisque 1, .00 1. .00 98. 00 98. .00 ayotes 70, .00 . 91 29. 00 1847. .30 Francisco 81, .50 1.00 312. 00 25428. ,00 cabbage 5, .50 . 91 24 . 00 120. . 12 daughters 169, .00 1.00 210. 00 35490. .00 camote 2, .00 1. .00 123. 00 246. .00 green beans 19, .50 1. .00 35. 00 682. .50 Total Energy Input: 64019. .48 malanga 15, .00 1. .00 98. 00 1470. .00 nance 31, .00 .01 41. 00 12. .71 Output/Input: 4. .20 Appendix 16f. Continued nname winged beans 9.00 98.00 1.00 .01 98.00 35.00 Total Energy Output: 882.00 34.30 269018.53 (8) Sugarcane output material standard c a l o r i e s / weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s qty 52820.00 1.0 364.00 Total Energy Output: input material qty standard c a l o r i e s / weight gm k i l o c a l o r i e s sugarcane 19226480.00 19226480.00 herbicide dibron labour Francisco Peon Family 2 200 116 197 135 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 643000.00 86910.00 312.00 312 .00 210.00 12860000.00 17382000.00 36192.00 61464.00 28350.00 Total Energy Input: 30368006.00 Output/Input: 0.63 A P P E N D I X 17 Calorific values for the different materials used or produced on the case study farms -368 Appendix 17. Calorific values for the different materials used or produced on the case study farms. MATERIAL CALORIES/gm MATERIAL CALORIES/gm animal-feed 3913. .04 malanga 98.00 arracache 98. .00 mango 72.00 avocado 85. ,00 manzana-de-agua 56.00 banana 99. .00 milk 61.00 banana-stem 43. .00 miquel 5.20 beans 35. ,00 m o t o r - o i l 11429000.00 b o l i v a r 5. ,20 nance 41.00 . b r e a d f r u i t 111. ,00 nancho 5.20 cabbage 24. .00 nematicide 86910.10 caibas 29. .00 n i s p e r o 41.00 camote 123. .00 n i t r a t e 14700000.00 cas 49. .00 nname 98.00 cashew-fruit 64. .00 oranges 45.00 cashew-nut 562. .00 papaya 46.00 cassava 362. ,00 pedro 5.20 chayote 26. ,00 pejebaye 189.00 chicken 302. ,00 peon 5.20 coconut 359. .00 peons 5.20 c o f f e e 352. .00 p e s t i c i d e / i n s e c t i c i d e i 86910.10 corn-seed 3913, .04 p i g 457.00 cow 118. .00 pigeon-peas 336.00 cucumber 12. .00 pineapple 52.00 daughter 3. .50 p i p i a n 29.00 daughters 3. .50 p l a n t a i n 99.00 d i e s e l 11429500. .00 r a b b i t 302.00 duck 326. .00 r a d d i s h 26.00 eggs 398. .00 r a t i c i d e 86910.10 f e r t i l i z e r 42857. .14 r i c e 360.00 firewood 3261, .90 son 5.20 f r a n c i s c o 5. .20 soursop 101.00 f u n g i c i d e 86910. .10 squash 29.00 g a s o l i n e 9569662. .39 string-beans 35.00 g r a p e f r u i t 45. .00 sugarcane 364.00 guayabo 49. .00 tamarind 239.00 h e r b i c i d e 643000, .00 t e p i s q u i n t l e 457.00 honey 294, .00 t i q u i s q u e 98.00 horse 10. .10 watermelon 28.00 i t a b o 29. .00 wife 3.50 joc o t e .41. .00 winged-bean 35.00 jorge 5. .20 lemons 44. ,00 lime 15. .50 369 A P P E N D I X 18 Li s t of standardized weights for the different products from the agroecosystems on the case study farms Appendix 18. List of standardized weights for the different products from the agroecosystems on the case study farms. MATERIAL kg/unit Material kg/unit avocado .45 mango .40 banana 18. .00 manzana-de-agua .01 banana-stem 100. .00 nance .01 b r e a d f r u i t .91 ni s p e r o .02 cabbage .91 oranges .30 caibas .10 papaya 1.00 cas .01 pejebaye 23.00 cashew-fruit .02 p i g 35.00 cashew-nut .01 pineapple .91 chayote .46 p i p i a n .91 chicken 1, .14 p l a n t a i n 18.00 coconut 2. .00 r a b b i t 1.14 c o f f e e 17, .40 r a d d i s h .01 cow 600. .00 soursop 2.00 cucumber .25 squash .91 duck 1. .14 sugarcane .40 eggs .10 t e p i s q u i n t l e 13.50 firewood 600. .00 watermelon 2.00 g r a p e f r u i t .60 winged-bean .01 guayabo .10 honey .91 i t a b o .50 joc o t e .01 lemons .10 A P P E N D I X 19 Farm income and expenses for the six case studies, 1983-1984 Appendix 19a. Farm income and expenses for case study 221, Pitahaya April '83 - May '84. ITEM CASH RECEIPTS 1 Coconut 2 Mango 3 P i g 4 Honey T o t a l Cash R e c e i p t s : OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME 5 S a l a r y 6 S i s t e r 7 Pension T o t a l Other Income: T o t a l Income: OPERATING EXPENSES 8 F e r t i l i z e r 9 V e t e r i n a r y T o t a l Operating Expenses: FIXED EXPENSES 10 Food & L i v i n g Expenses 11 Miscellaneous T o t a l F i x e d Expenses: T o t a l Expenses: AMOUNT INCOME EXPENSES 1600.00 2583.00 3500.00 60.00 7743.00 35282.10 6700.00 5432.48 47414.58 55157.58 35.00 40.00 75.00 44227.37 2139.50 46366.87 46441.87 Net Farm Income: 8715.71 Appendix 19b. Farm income and expenses for case study 226, April '83 - March '84. ITEM AMOUNT INCOME CASH RECEIPTS 1. P l a n t a i n 114, 745. 00 2. P i p i a n 24, 590. 00 3. Other Crops 18, 800. 00 4. T o t a l Cash Receipts 158, 135. 00 NET CAPITAL GAINS INCOME 5. Land Sale (10, 000. 00 6. T o t a l Net C a p i t a l Gains Income 10, 000. 00 OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME 7. Wages and S a l a r y 43, 487. 00 8. Pension 76, 983. 00 9. TOTAL INCOME 288, 965. 00 EXPENSES OPERATING EXPENSES 10 . H i r e d Labour 7, 470. 00 11 . M a c h i n e r y , f u e l , r e p a i r s , e t c . 61, 574. 00 12 . F e r t i l i z e r 1, 735. 00 13 . Other Crop Expenses(seed,spray,etc.) 1, 373. 00 14 . Marketing Expenses (mainly f u e l costs) 15, 975. 00 15 . U t i l i t i e s & Miscellaneous 11, 663. 00 16 . Debt Payments 33, 912. 00 17 . TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 98, 917. 00 FIXED EXPENSES 18 . Food & Other L i v i n g Expenses 110, 211. 00 19 . Improvement Repairs, Insurance, E t c . 11, 287. 00 20 . D e p r e c i a t i o n of Equipment ? 21 . D e p r e c i a t i o n of Pickup 9 22 . TOTAL FIXED EXPENSES 121, 498. 00 23 . TOTAL EXPENSES 220, 415. 00 24 . NET FARM INCOME 30, 765. 00 lLand was b a r t e r e d f o r two outboard motors and a l a r g e r a d i o - c a s s e t t e p l a y e r ; f i g u r e r epresents farmer's estimate of the value of the t r a n s a c t i o n . 374 Appendix 19c. Farm income and expenses for case study 303, Pitahaya, April '83 - April '84. ITEM AMOUNT INCOME CASH RECEIPTS 1 Pasture (Milk/Breeding Stock/ Fruit) 2 Rice 1 3 Rice 3 4 Fruits 5 Mixed Garden 40782.50 103812.00 82206.90 2974.00 725.00 Total Cash Receipts: OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME 6 Salary 7 Room & Board 8 Loans 230500.40 11190.00 1500.00 120000.00 Total Other Income: Total Income: 132690.00 363190.40 EXPENSES OPERATING EXPENSES 9 F e r t i l i z e r 10 Veterinary 11 Hired Labour 12 Hired Equipment 13 Other Crop Expenses 14 Miscellaneous 15 Principal & Interest on Loans Total Operating Expenses: FIXED EXPENSES 10 Food & Living Expenses 11 Miscellaneous Total Fixed Expenses: Total Expenses: 12087.50 60795.50 26307.00 31566.30 45869.00 7000.00 106250.00 289875.30 30283.30 16923.00 47206.30 337081.60 Net Farm Income: 26108.80 Appendix 19d. Farm income and expenses for Case Study 300, San Juan Sur, April '83 - March '84. ITEM CASH RECEIPTS 1 Coffee 2 Other Crops T o t a l Cash R e c e i p t s : OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME 4 Wages & S a l a r y : Farmer 5 Wages & S a l a r y : Daughter T o t a l Other Income: T o t a l Cash Income: OPERATING EXPENSES 8 F e r t i l i z e r 9 Agro-chemicals 10 V e t e r i n a r y 11 Seedlings 12 Equipment T o t a l Operating Expenses: FIXED EXPENSES 14 Food & L i v i n g Expenses 15 Medical 16 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 17 Miscellaneous T o t a l F i x e d Expenses: T o t a l Cash Expenses: AMOUNT INCOME EXPENSES 68806.00 3020.00 71826.00 56995.00 20800.00 77795.00 149621.00 6326.00 635.00 2901.00 360.00 710.00 10932.00 90303.55 950.00 8475.00 12180.00 111908.55 122840.55 Net Cash Income: 26780.45 Appendix 19e. Farm income and expenses for case study 301, San Juan Sur, April '83 - May '84. ITEM AMOUNT INCOME CASH RECEIPTS 1 Coffee 2 Sugarcane 3 Other Crops T o t a l R e c e i p t s : OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME 4 Wages & S a l a r y : Husband 5 Wages & S a l a r y : Wife 6 Ice Cream Sales 7 Loan 8 l o t t e r y T o t a l Other Income: T o t a l Income: 31504.30 28923.00 1127.00 61554.30 40725.00 5332.00 155.50 2000.00 2101.00 50313.50 111867.80 EXPENSES OPERATING EXPENSES 9 H i r e d Help 10 F e r t i l i z e r 11 Miscellaneous T o t a l Operating Expenses: FIXED EXPENSES 12 Food & L i v i n g Expenses 13 U t i l i t i e s 14 Miscellaneous T o t a l F i x e d Expenses: T o t a l Expenses: 2687.50 2338.00 608.00 5633.50 34375.00 2013.25 21468.00 57856.25 63489.75 Net Farm Income: 48378.05 Appendix 19f. Farm income and expenses for Case Study 302, San Juan Sur, April '83 - May '84. ITEM AMOUNT INCOME CASH RECEIPTS 1 Coffee 2 Sugarcane 3 M i l k 4 Honey 5 Other Crops T o t a l Cash R e c e i p t s : OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME 6 Wages & S a l a r y : Farmer 7 Room & Board 8 Bank Loan T o t a l Other Income: T o t a l Cash Income: 78828.20 47572.56 8070.00 2240.00 516.25 132227.01 600.00 1650.00 4000.00 6250.00 141527.01 EXPENSES OPERATING EXPENSES 9 F e r t i l i z e r 10 Agro-chemicals 11 V e t e r i n a r y 12 H i r e d Labour 13 Other Crop Expenses 14 P r i n c i p a l & I n t e r e s t on Loans T o t a l Operating Expenses: FIXED EXPENSES 15 Food & L i v i n g Expenses 16 Miscellaneous T o t a l F i x e d Expenses: T o t a l Cash Expenses: Net Cash Income: 2250.00 1120.00 2064.00 11366.00 545.00 4081.75 21426.75 57799.60 10835.25 68634.85 90061.60 51465.41 A P P E N D I X 20 Price l i s t for goods produced on the farm. Values derived from sales or observations in local markets. Appendix 20. Price l i s t for goods produced in the mixed garden. Values derived from farm sales or observations in local markets. Item Quantity Unit P r i c e / U n i t 1 Value Green beans 19 kg 11 .43 217. 17 P l a n t a i n 16 racime 1 . 5 0 / f r u i t 1200. 00 (50 f r u i t s / r a c i m e ) Casava 20 kg 2 .50 50. 00 Rabbit 1 each 25 .00 25. 00 Chayote 972 each 2 .00 1944. 00 Arracache 1 kg 25 .00 25. 00 Banana 2 racime (50) 0 . 2 5 / f r u i t 12. 50 Sweet potato 1 kg 10 .00 10. 00 Cas 15 each 2 .00 30. 00 Chicks 32 each 5 .00 160. 00 Eggs 768 each 1 .00 768. 00 Oranges 1533 each 0 .75 1149. 75 T e p i s q u i n t l e 1 each 1000 .00 1000. 00 Casava 7 kg 10 .00 70. 00 Manzana de agua 163 each 0 .50 81. 50 Malanga 4 kg 10 .00 40. 00 Nance 7 each 0 .25 1. 75 P i g 1 each 3000 .00 3000. 00 Banana 421 racime (50) 0 . 2 5 / f r u i t 5262. 50 Firewood 4 cu b i c meter 100 .00 400. 00 Itabo flower 1 racime 60 .00 60. 00 lemon 50 each 0 .25 12. 50 oranges 150 each 0 .75 37. 50 Arracache 5 kg 25 .00 1225. 00 Squash 70 each 20 .00 1400. 00 Blackbeans 5 kg 30 .00 150. 00 Cabbage 11 each 5 .00 55. 00 Sweet potato 2 kg 10 .00 20. 00 Green beans 19.5 kg 11 .43 222. 89 Malanga 15 kg 10 .00 150. 00 Nance 31 each 0 .25 7. 75 Name 9 kg 10 .00 90. 00 Radish 300 dozen 2 .00 50. 00 Red beans 24 kg 30 .00 720. 00 Tiquisque 2 kg 10 .00 20. 00 Winged beans 49 each 0 .05 2. 45 Casava 67 kg 10 .00 67. 00 xThe p r i c e i s i n colones, the l o c a l currency of Costa R i c a . A P P E N D I X 21 Cashflow budgets for the six case studies, 1983-1984 APPENDIX 21a. C A S H F L O W B U D G E T - F A R M 2 2 6 TOTAL APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR 1 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 7 6280, .00 11432. .00 17063. .00 28745. .00 46116. ,00 33539. .00 28648. .00 44569. .00 44406 .00 49973 .00 43005, .00 2 Operating Receipts Plantain 114745, .00 6100. .00 6390, .00 10315. .00 . 17350. .00 22450, .00 20900. .00 14 950. .00 9750. .00 4200, .00 1800 .00 .00 540. .00 3 Pipian 24590, .00 15885 .00 1170, .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 480. .00 2095. .00 4960. .00 4 Other Crops 18800, .00 710. .00 250. .00 .00 .00 400. .00 .00 75. .00 15400, .00 .00 .00 .00 1965. .00 5 6 Capital Receipts Land Sale 10000, .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 10000, .00 .00 .00 7 8 Non-Farm Receipts Wages and Salary 43847, .00 2145. .00 2145. .00 2145. ,00 2145. .00 3140. .00 6700. ,00 3140. ,00 9900. .00 6107. ,00 .00 3140. .00 3140. ,00 9 Pension 76983. .00 5092. .00 5092. .00 5092. ,00 5092. .00 6144. .00 6037. ,00 6037. 00 12600. .00 6447. .00 6450. .00 6450. .00 6450. .00 10 11 TOTAL CASH INFLOW 288965. .00 29932. ,00 15047. ,00 17552. .00 24587. .00 32134. ,00 33637. 00 24202. 00 47650. .00 16754. ,00 18730. ,00 11685. .00 17055. ,00 12 13 Operating Expenses Seed 14 F e r t i l i z e r and Lime 1735. .00 360. .00 375. ,00 1000. ,00 15 Chemicals 1373. .00 185. ,00 274. ,00 914. ,00 16 Other Crop Expenses 17 Gas, O i l , Lubricantes 23110.00 4800.00 1200.00 1600.00 2910.00 1700.00 500.00 200.00 1100.00 1350.00 1650.00 2250.00 3850.00 18 Hired Labour 7470.00 1200.00 450.00 2905.00 315.00 1000.00 850.00 600.00 150.00 19 Machine Hire .00 20 Repairs Machinery 4555 .00 1175, .00 500, .00 80, .00 2800, .00 21 Repairs Buildings & Imp 6400 .00 1415. .00 350, .00 240. .00 375, .00 4020. .00 22 Property Taxes 23 Insurance 2451. .00 1200. .00 1251. .00 24 U t i l i t i e s 11663. .00 1216. .00 1066. .00 876. .00 876. .00 1063. .00 896. .00 994, .00 1046, .00 876. .00 1043. .00 861. .00 850, .00 25 Pickup Truck 49011. .00 520. .00 350, .00 960. .00 33192. .00 1070. .00 4550. .00 1307, .00 7062. .00 26 Other Farm Expenses 2436 .00 300. .00 88, .00 105. .00 805. .00 1138. .00 27 28 Total Cash Operating Expenses 110204 .00 9426. .00 2266, .00 4571. .00 4510 .00 7128. .00 36192, .00 3614. .00 10154, .00 4077. .00 2798, .00 5598. .00 19870, .00 29 30 Capital Expenditures Machinery and Equipment 3873. .00 1173. .00 1700. .00 1000. .00 31 31 Other Expenditures Family l i v i n g Expenses 88901 .00 7525. .00 6435, .00 7080. .00 7825, .00 6515. .00 8279. .00 6772, .00 5935, .00 8845. .00 8945, .00 7915. .00 6830. .00 32 Social Security 2431. .00 561. .00 170. .00 170. .00 170. .00 170. .00 170. .00 170. .00 170. .00 170. .00 170. .00 170. .00 170. .00 33 Medical 1770. .00 100. .00 670. .00 100. .00 100. .00 100. ,00 100. .00 100. .00 100. .00 100. .00 100. .00 100. .00 100, .00 34 Other Non-Farm Expenses 17109. .00 3915. .00 354. .00 300. .00 300. .00 400. ,00 300. .00 300. .00 370. .00 4025. ,00 1150. .00 5170. .00 525. .00 35 36 TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 224288.00 21527.00 9895.00 12221.00 12905.00 14313.00 46214.00 12656.00 17729.00 17217.00 13163.00 18953.00 27495.00 38 CASH AVAILABLE 64677.00 8405.00 11432.00 16763.00 28745.00 46566.00 33539.00 45085.00 58569.00 44106.00 49973.00 42705.00 32565.00 39 40 Payment on Debt Principal 28650 .00 1500. .00 750 .00 14900. .00 11500.00 41 Interest 5262 .00 925. .00 1837 .00 2500. .00 42 Total Debt Payments 33912 .00 2425. .00 .00 .00 .00 750.00 .00 16737.00 14000.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 43 44 ENDING CASH BALANCE APPENDIX 21b. CASH FLOW BUDGET - FARM 221 TOTAL APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR 1 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 1700.00 2336.50 1789.00 2379.25 2552.50 3579.50 3111.75 1540.15 20.40 2186.77 4572.14 8277.84 2 Operating Receipts Pig 3500.00 3500.00 3 Mango 2583.00 24.00 1599.00 160.00 800.00 4 Coconut 1600.00 375.00 150.00 1000.00 75.00 5 Honey 60.00 60.00 6 7 Total Receipts 7743.00 399.00 1599.00 160.00 .00 150.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1000.00 3635.00 800.00 8 9 Non-Farm Receipts Wages & Salary 35282.10 2337.50 1517.50 3113.00 3198.00 3456.00 2592.00 930.10 2960.00 3144.00 4863.00 3246.00 3925.00 10 Pension 5432.48 360.00 360.00 360.00 360.00 434.00 434.00 434.00 868.00 455.62 455.62 455.62 455.62 11 Sister 6700.00 500.00. 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 1200.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 12 13 Total Other Income 47414.58 3197.50 2377.50 3973.00 4058.00 4390.00 3526.00 1864.10 4328.00 4799.62 5818.62 4201.62 4880.62 14 15 TOTAL CASH INFLOW 55157.58 3596.50 3976.50 4133.00 4058.00 4540.00 3526.00 1864.10. 4328.00 4799.62 6818.62 7836.62 5680.62 16 17 Operating Expenses F e r t i l i z e r 35.00 35.00 18 Veterinary 40.00 40.00 19 20 Total Operating Expenses 75.00 .00 .00 35.00 40.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 21 22 Fixed Expenses Food & Living 44227.37 2960. .00 4151.50 3407.75 3844. 75 3513. .00 3644.75 3296.20 5782.75 2593. 25 3769 .75 3860 -92 3402.75 23 Miscellaneous 2139.50 372.50 100.00 349.00 139.50 65.00 40.00 663.50 270.1 oo 140.00 24 25 Total Fixed Expenses 46366.87 2960. .00 4524.00 3507.75 3844. 75 3513. .00 3993.75 3435.70 5847.75 2633. 25 4433 .25 4130 .92 3542.75 26 27 TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 46441.87 2960. .00 4524.00 3542.75 3884. 75 3513. .00 3993.75 3435.70 5847.75 2633. 25 4433 .25 4130 .92 3542.75 28 29 ENDING CASH BALANCE 8715.71 2336. .50 1789.00 2379.25 2552. 50 3579. .50 3111.75 1540.15 20.40 2186. 77 4572 .14- 8277 .84 10415.71 APPENDIX 21c. C A S H FLOW B U D G E T - F A R M 303 TOTAL MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR 1 BEGINNING CASH'BALANCE 10000, .00 10000. .00 1800. .00 1432 .77 -9159, .22 -11146, .14 -17499. .06 -12176. .41 128118. .60 92648 .40 77917 .48 63431, .56 71559 .64 2 Operating Receipts Rice 186018. .90 186018. .90 3 Milk 15144, .50 3440, .50 2450 .00 2240 .00 1540 .00 2121, .00 392. .00 77. .00 49, .00 1009. .00 1826. .00 4 Other Crops 5337, .00 1647. .00 615 .00 455, .00 2620. .00 5 6 Total Receipts 206500, .40 5087, .50 2450 .00 2855 .00 1540, .00 2121. .00 392. .00 186095. .90 49. .00 .00 455, .00 3629. .00 1826. .00 7 8 Capital Receipts Breeding Stock 24000, .00 24000. .00 9 10 Non-Farm Receipts Wages and Salary 12690, .00 1480. .00 6330. .00 3280. .00 1600. .00 11 Bank Loans 120000, .00 50000. .00 30000. .00 22000. .00 18000. .00 12 13 Total Other Income 132690. .00 50000. .00 30000. .00 .00 22000. .00 .00 18000. .00 1480. .00 6330. .00 3280. .00 1600. ,00 ,00 00 14 15 TOTAL CASH INFLOW 363190, .40 55087. .50 32450, .00 2855, .00 23540. .00 2121. .00 18392. .00 187575. ,90 6379. .00 3280. .00 2055. .00 27629. .00 1826. .00 16 Operating Expenses -17 Seed 22500.00 22500.00 oo 18 F e r t i l i z e r and Lime 12087. .50 9475 .00 2612. .50 19 Herbicides/Pesticides 20305, .00 10764 .00 2593, .00 4632, .00 2316, .00 20 Other Crop Expenses 4968. .51 200. .00 505 .01 112, .00 250, .00 160. .00 1281. .50 200, .00 1700, .00 560 .00 21 Hired Labour . 26307, .00 1240 .00 4730, .00 5544, .00 2288. .00 5647 .00 6858. .00 22 Machine Hire 31566. .25 2500 .00 1400 .00 27666. .25 23 Other Farm Expenses 5891, .04 490. .92 490 .92 490. .92 490. .92 490. .92 490 .92 490, .92 490, .92 490. .92 490. .92 490. .92 490, .92 24 Breeding Stock 60000, .00 60000. .00 25 26 Total Cash , Operating Expenses 183625. .30 83190, .92 24974 .93 10538, .42 10916, .92 5254, .92 7537 .92 36296. .67 490, .92 690. .92 490. .92 2190. .92 1050, .92 27 28 Other Expenditures Family Living Expenses 30283. .30 2987. .50 2742 .30 2180. .00 2560. .00 1560. .00 1400 .00 3398. .50 2200, .00 3000. .00 3200, .00 2830. .00 2225. .00 29 Medical 335. .00 335, .00 30 Other Non-Farm Expenses 16588. .00 300. .00 425. .00 300, .00 4550. .00 400. .00 413, .00 300. .00 500, .00 3300. .00 2000. .00 3800. .00 300. .00 31 32 Total Fixed Expenses 47206, .30 3287. .50 3167, .30 2480. .00 7110. .00 1960. .00 2148. .00 3698. .50 2700. .00 6300. .00 5200. .00 6630. .00 2525. .00 33 34 TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 230831. .60 86478. .42 28142. .23 13018. .42 18026. .92 7214. .92 9685. .92 39995. .17 3190. .92 6990. .92 5690. .92 8820. ,92 3575. .92 35 36 CASH AVAILABLE 132358. .80 1800. .00 6107. .77 -8730. .65 -3646. .14 -16240. .06 -8792. .98 135404. ,32 131306. .68 88937. .48 74281. .56 82239. ,64 69809. .72 37 38 Payment on Debt Principal 100000. .00 4175. .00 7142. ,86 973. ,29 3169. .14 7142. 86 37396. ,85 10000. ,00 10000. ,00 10000. ,00 10000. .00 oo 39 Interest 6250. .00 500. .00 428. .57 357, .14 285. •71 214 .29 142. .86 1261 .43 1020. .00 850 .00 680. .00 510 .00 40 Total Debt Payments 106250. .00 4675. .00 428, .57 7500. .00 1259. .00 3383, .43 7285. .72 38658, .28 11020. .00 10850 .00 10680. .00 10510, .00 41 42 ENDING CASH BALANCE 36108. .80 1800.00 1432. .77 -9159, .22 -11146, .14 -17499. ,06 -12176, .41 128118. .60 92648, .40 77917. .48 63431. .56 71559. .64 59299 .72 CJ Co co APPENDIX 21d. C A S H FLOW B U D G E T - F A R M 3 0 0 TOTAL APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR 1 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 12000. .00 5890, .00 3420. .00 15. .00 -55. .00 2255. .00 7161, .00 19531. .00 30746, .00 38585 .00 45386, .45 43896 .45 2 Operating Receipts Coffee 68806. .00 540, .00 1530. .00 7230. .00 12900, .00 12840, .00 11340, .00 21526, .00 900, .00 3 Other Crops 3020. .00 135, .00 100. .00 210. .00 130. .00 1710, .00 675. .00 60. .00 4 5 Total Cash Receipts 71826. .00 .00 135. .00 100. .00 750, .00 1660, .00 7230. .00 14610. .00 13515, .00 11340. .00 21526, .00 960. .00 .00 6 7 Non-Farm Income Wages & Salary: Farmer 56995, .00 4500, .00 4500, .00 4500, .00 4500, .00 4500. .00 4500, .00 4500, .00 4500, .00 4500, .00 7495. .00 4500. .00 4500. .00 8 - Wages S Salary: Daughter 20800. .00 1600. .00 1600. .00 1600. .00 1600. .00 1600. .00 1600, .00 1600, .00 1600. .00 1600. .00 3200, .00 1600. .00 1600. .00 9 10 Total Non-Farm Income 77795. .00 6100. .00 6100, .00 6100. .00 6100. ,00 6100. .00 6100. .00 6100. .00 6100. .00 6100. .00 10695. .00 6100. .00 6100. .00 11 12 TOTAL CASH INFLOW 149621. .00 6100. .00 6235, .00 6200. .00 6850. .00 7760. .00 13330, .00 20710. .00 19615. .00 17440. .00 32221. .00 7060. .00 6100. .00 13 14 Operating Expenses F e r t i l i z e r 6326. .00 4550. .00 900. .00 876. ,00 15 Agro-chemicals 635. ,00 320. ,00 50. .00 200. ,00 65. .00 16 Veterinary 2901. .00 2901. .00 17 Seedlings 360. ,00 360. ,00 CO co VO 18 Equipment 710.00 710.00 19 20 Total Operating Expenses 10932. .00 4550. .00 1220. .00 710. .00 360, .00 50, .00 .00 200. .00 .00 876. .00 .00 .00 2966 .00 21 22 Fixed Expenses Food & Living Expenses 90303. .55 5910, .00 6135, .00 6720. .00 5310. .00 4650, .00 6624 .00 6110, .00 6525, .00 7050. .00 21519 .55 6850, .00 6900, .00 23 Medical 950, .00 450. .00 500 .00 24 Transportation 8475. .00 400, .00 550, .00 1250. .00 450. .00 550, .00 900 .00 1000, .00 1000, .00 525. .00 1200. .00 500. .00 150. .00 25 Miscellaneous 12180. .00 1350. .00 800. .00 475. .00 800 .00 200. .00 900 .00 1030. .00 875, .00 1150. .00 2200. .00 1200. .00 1200. .00 26 27 Total Fixed Expenses 111908. .55 7660, .00 7485, .00 8895. .00 6560 .00 5400, .00 8424 .00 8140. .00 8400. .00 8725. .00 25419, .55 8550. .00 8250, .00 28 29 TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 122840. .55 12210. .00 8705. .00 9605. .00 6920, .00 5450. .00 8424. .00 8340. .00 8400, .00 9601. .00 25419. .55 8550. .00 11216. .00 30 31 ENDING CASH BALANCE 26780. .45 5890. .00 3420. .00 15. ,00 -55. .00 2255. .00 7161, .00 19531. .00 30746. .00 38585. .00 45386. .45 43896. ,45 38780. ,45 VO o APPENDIX 21e. C A S H F L O W B U D G E T - F A R M 3 0 1 TOTAL APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR 1 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 2 Operating Receipts Coffee 38185. .50 5572 .50 126 .00 7384 .00 2988 .00 3125 .00 7070 .00 8400 .00 2950 .00 570 .00 3 Sugarcane 28923. .00 28923 .00 4 Other Crops 1127 .00 22. .00 5. .00 900 .00 100. .00 100. .00 5 6 Total Receipts 68235 .50 22. .00 5572 .50 .00 131 .00 .00 8284 .00 2988. .00 3225 .00 7170 .00 8400 .00 2950, .00 29493 .00 7 8 Non-Farm Receipts Wages 6 Salary: Husband 34725. .00 3764. .00 3000 .00 3150 .00 3000. .00 3370. .00 3591 .00 3780. .00 3470. .00 2850. .00 2050 .00 2700. .00 9 Wages & Salary: Wife 5332. .00 700. .00 695. .00 1337. .00 1600, .00 1000, .00 10 Ice Cream Sales 155. .50 60. .00 48 .00 35. .00 12. .50 11 Loan 2000, .00 2000. .00 12 Lottery 2101. .00 2101. .00 13 14 Total Other Income 44313. .50 3824. .00 3048. .00 5185. .00 3712. .50 4065. .00 4928. .00 5380. .00 4470. .00 4951. .00 2050. .00 2700. .00 .00 15 16 TOTAL CASH INFLOW 112549. .00 3846. .00 .8620. .50 5185. ,00 3843. .50 4065. .00 13212. .00 8368. ,00 7695. ,00 12121. .00 10450. .00 5650. .00 29493. .00 17 18 Operating Expenses Hired Help 2687. .50 50. .00 2637. .50 10 VO 19 F e r t i l i z e r 2338.00 2338.00 20 Miscellaneous 608 .00 400. .00 100. .00 93 .00 15 .00 21 22 Total Operating Expenses 5633 .50 400. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 150. .00 .00 93 .00 .00 .00 .00 4990 .50 23 24 Fixed Expenses Food S Living Expenses 30608 .00 1880. .00 1600 .00 2424. .00 2130, .00 2560. .00 1820. .00 3794. .00 2014, .00 1926. .00 1820 .00 2165, .00 6475. .00 25 U t i l i t i e s 1889 .25 145, .00 145 .00 190, .00 159 .75 133, .00 168, .50 160, .00 158 .00 165. .00 160 .00 145, .00 160. .00 26 Miscellaneous 20820 .00 600. .00 1750 .00 2100. .00 500 .00 1160. .00 2760. .00 1500. .00 1150 .00 5500. .00 3400, .00 200. .00 200. .00 27 28 Total Fixed Expenses 53317 .25 2625. .00 3495 .00 4714, .00 2789, .75 3853. .00 4748. .50 5454, .00 3322 .00 7591. .00 5380 .00 2510. .00 6835. .00 29 30 TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 58950 .75 3025. .00 3495 .00 4714, .00 2789, .75 3853, .00 4898. .50 5454. .00 3415 .00 7591. .00 5380, .00 2510, .00 11825, .50 31 32 CASH AVAILABLE 53598 .25 821. .00 5125. .50 471. .00 1053, .75 212. ,00 8313. .50 2914. .00 4280, .00 4530. .00 5070, .00 3140. .00 17667. .50 33 Payment on Debt Principal 2000 .00 \ 333, .30 333, .34 333. .34 333, .34 333 .34 333. .34 34 Interest 560 .00 160, .00 133. .33 106. .67 80, .00 53, .33 26. .67 35 Total Debt Payments 2560. .00 .00 .00 .00 493. .30 466. .67 440. .01 413. .34 386, .67 360. ,01 .00 .00 .00 36 37 ENDING CASH BALANCE 51038. .25 821. 00 5125. .50 471. ,00 560. .45 -254. .67 7873. .49 2500. .66 3893, .33 4169. ,99 5070. .00 3140. .00 17667. ,50 CO VO NJ APPENDIX 21f. C A S H F L O W B U D G E T - F A R M 3 0 2 TOTAL MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR 1 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 5000. .00 14731. .55 5200, .05 121. .55 30739, .26 40318. .26 46547 .51 46040. .01 54645, .21 66704 .71 61389 .46 59232 .46 2 Operating Receipts Coffee 78828 .20 14295. .00 1500 .00 907. .50 17895, .00 11525. .00 5380 .00 6970. .00 17754. .00 2601 .70 3 Sugarcane 47572 .56 40609. .61 2143. .75 4819, .20 4 Milk 8070 .00 600. .00 300 .00 888 .00 888. .00 444. .00 666. .00 834 .00 690, .00 736. .00 736, .00 736, .00 552, .00 5 Honey 2240 .00 37. .50 285. .00 850, .00 765, .00 302, .50 6 Other Crops 516 .25 30. .00 41 .25 90, .00 200. .00 50 .00 25, .00 80, .00 7 8 Total Receipts 137227 .01 14925. .00 341 .25 2425. .50 42690. .11 18429. .00 14534. .75 6264. .00 12504. .20 18490. .00 1586. .00 1501, .00 3536, .20 9 10 Non-Farm Receipts Wages and Salary 300. .00 300. .00 11 Bank Loans 4000. .00 4000. .00 12 Room & Board 1650. .00 1100. .00 550. .00 13 14 Total Other Income 5950. .00 4000. .00 .00 .00 1100. .00 550. .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 300. .00 15 16 TOTAL CASH INFLOW 141527, .01 18925. .00 341, .25 2425. .50 42690. .11 18429. .00 14534. .75 6264. .00 12504. .20 18490. ,00 1586. .00 1501. .00 3836. .20 17 18 Operating Expenses Seed 521. .00 29. .00 40. .00 60. .00 122. ,00 270. .00 to VO LO 19 F e r t i l i z e r and Lime 2250. .00 2250. .00 20 Herbicides/Pesticides 1120. .00 100. .00 200. .00 820. .00 21 Other Crop Expenses .00 22 Hired Labour 11366. .00 1820. .00 420. .00 2406, .00 1890, .00 2220, .00 1070. .00 980 .00 560 .00 23 Machine Hire 3128. .40 3128, .40 24 Other Farm Expenses 794. .50 13. .50 41, .00 360, .00 100, .00 280 .00 25 Property Taxes 26 U t i l i t i e s 1710, .00 176, .00 140, .00 154, .00 140 .00 140, .00 135, .50 144. .50 144. .00 140. .50 129, .25 126. .00 140, .25 27 28 Total Operating Expenses . 20889, .90 2138, .50 181 .00 3224, .00 5674 .40 2190, .00 2555 .50 964. .50 144. .00 1210. .50 1511 .25 956, .00 140 .25 29 30 Capital Expenditures Livestock 1150. .00 1000, .00 150 .00 31 32 Fixed Expenses Family Living Expenses 44139. .45 3922, .45 3610, .00 3385. .00 4375, .00 3725, .00 4025, .00 3657. .00 3480. .00 4145. .00 4015 .00 2627. .00 3173, .00 33 Social Security 900. .00 75. .00 75. .00 75. .00 75, .00 75. .00 75, .00 75. .00 75. .00 75. .00 75, .00 75. .00 75, .00 34 Other Non-Farm Expenses 20050. .50 3057. .50 1925. .00 820. .00 1948, .00 2860. .00 1650, .00 2075. .00 200. .00 1000. .00 1300, .00 3215, .00 35 36 Total Fixed Expenses 65089. .95 7054. .95 5610. .00 4280. .00 6398. .00 6660. .00 5750. .00 5807. .00 3755. .00 5220. ,00 5390, .00 2702. .00 6463, .00 37 38 TOTAL CASH OUTFLOW 85979. .85 9193. .45 5791. .00 7504. .00 12072, .40 8850. .00 8305, .50 6771. .50 3899. .00 6430. .50 6901, .25 3658. .00 6603, .25 39 CO VO 40 CASH AVAILABLE 55547. .16 14731. .55 9281. .80 121. ,55 30739. .26 40318. .26 46547. .51 46040 .01 54645 .21 66704. .71 61389 .46 59232, .46 56465 .41 41 42 Payment on Debt Principal 4000, .00 4000, .00 43 Interest 81, .75 81, .75 44 Total Debt Payments 4081. .75 4081. .75 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 45 46 ENDING CASH BALANCE 51465, .41 14731, .55 5200. .05 121. .55 30739 .26 40318 .26 46547. .51 46040. .01 54645 .21 66704. .71 61389, .46 59232. .46 56465. .41 vO A P P E N D I X 22 Relative economic performance of cropping systems on each of the case studies Appendix 22a. Relative economic performance of cropping systems on farm 226. AE#1 Cropping Systems AE#2 AE#3 AE#4 AE#5X CASH RECEIPTS 1. P l a n t a i n 2. P i p i a n 3. Rice 4. Corn 5. Papaya 6. Soursop 7. Mango 8. Manzana de Agua 9. Chicken 10. Eggs 11. Lemon 12. Nispero 13. Banana 14. Coconut 15. C u l a n t r o 16. Guayabo 17. Watermelon 18. Cashew T o t a l R e c e i p t s : 114,745 OPERATING EXPENSES 19. Family Labour 2 8,037 20. H i r e d Labour 5,914 21. Gasoline 923 22. F e r t i l i z e r 650 23. H e r b i c i d e / F u n g i c i d e s 24. P e s t i c i d e s 185 25. Seed/Seedlings 26. Equipment Maintenance 27. Chickens 28. V e t e r i n a r y Supplies 29. Harvest Costs T o t a l Expenses: 15,709 Net Income: 99,036 B e n e f i t - C o s t R a t i o : 7.3 480 24,590 15,400 400 12,194 8,112 924 425 3, 044 660 1, 418 70 2, 115 28,962 13,108 1.5 796 250 1, 200 114,745 42,070 1,046 350 925 600 1, 873 -827 .6 50 50 175 498 360 500 1,108 42 532 90 24 25 35 690 4, 079 (613) 80 40 500 150 1, 383 2, 696 5.30 (2.9) P o s t e d at the estimated market value. 2Costed at an opportunity cost of 100 colones per 8-hour work day. 398 Table 22b. Relative economic performance of cropping systems on farm 221, Pitahaya. Mixed Fruit Trees Maiz Field Mixed Garden CASH RECEIPTS 1 Coconut 2 Mango 3 Plantain 4 Banana 5 Lemons 6 Oranges 7 Tamarind 8 Cas 9 Cashew 10 Soursop 11 Tiquisque 12 Corn 13 Eggs 14 Chicken 15 Pig 16 Honey 1150 5870 1353 36 252 325 2178 27 Total Receipts: 7020.00 1641.00 928 100 52 800 700 3500 60 8670.00 OPERATING EXPENSES 17 Family Labour1 18 Miscellaneous Total Expenses: Net Income: Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1762.50 1762.50 5257.50 3.98 450.00 450.00 1191.00 3.65 1381.25 892.92 2274.17 6395.83 9.71 (3.81) 1Costed at an opportunity cost of 100 colones per 8-hour work day. Appendix 22c. Relative economic performance of cropping systems on farm 303. AE#1 Cropping Systems AE#2 . AE#3 AE#4 AEiS 1 CASH RECEIPTS 1. L i v e s t o c k s a l e s 2 2. M i l k 3 3. Rice 4. Coconut 5 5. Tamarind 3 6. Mango3 7. Banana 8 8. P l a n t a i n 8 9. Cashew4 10. Sour Orange 7 11. Lemon6 12. Mandarin Orange 1 13. Soursop ' .14. P i g 9 15. Eggs 3 16. G r a p e f r u i t 5 T o t a l R e c e i p t s : 34,000 26,452 6, 480 OPERATING EXPENSES 17. Family Labour 1 0 H i r e d Labour Rental Equipment F e r t i l i z e r H e r b i c i d e / F u n g i c i d e s P e s t i c i d e s Seeds 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. L i v e s t o c k Taxes and i n t e r e s t on loans Miscellaneous T o t a l Expenses: Net Income: B e n e f i t - C o s t R a t i o : 7, 506 60,000 1, 928 335 69,770 2, 837 0.96 103,812 82,206 13,665 15,121 11,410 6, 907 8, 751 13,500 69,454 34,457 1.5 1, 249 162 162 246 66,932 103,812 82,206 1,819 9,675 1,587 12,154 19,864 5,180 7, 623 9, 000 1,108 64,605 1,587 17,601 232 1.3 1.1 1, 932 1, 312 147 382 100 3, 000 6, 912 148 13,934 (4,146) 400 (4,546) 9, 387 34.84 (3.4) 400 Appendix 22 c - (continued) 1 Share-cropping on neighbouring land 2 Estimated value of two c a l v e s born during study 3 Includes milk consumed on farm 4 Valued at 4.00 colones per f r u i t 5 Valued at 1.50 colones per f r u i t 6 Valued at 0.25 colon per f r u i t 7 Valued at 1.00 per f r u i t 8 Estimate of value of consumption, assuming s i x racime of 18 f r u i t s , valued at 1.50 colones per f r u i t 9 Estimated value of p i g 10 Valued at an opportunity cost of 100 colones per 8-hour day ; -40i, Appendix 22d. Relative economic performance of cropping systems on farm 300. Cropping Systems AE#1 AE#2 AE#3 AE#4 AE#5 CASH RECEIPTS 1. Coffee 3, 720 29,400 18,090 300 6,120 2. Banana 25 875 250 137 3. B r e a d f r u i t 340 4. Caibas 40